11 ms·

UK Investigatory Powers Bill: Politicians exempt themselves from new laws

159 points by Liriel 10y ago

doc_holliday 10y ago
Slightly related question, does anyone know if these laws are backdated. I.e a year's worth of data retention is that available to the list of access from now? As in have ISP already been collecting? Has the data collection started? Is it about to start?
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  'Has the data collection started?' I think we can assume it's been going on for years already.
- dingaling 10y ago
  > Has the data collection started? Is it about to start? At the behest of this Act? No, not yet. It has yet to be determined and ordered how "Internet Connection Records" will be collected and stored; perhaps this will occur at backhauls and exchange levels, rather than at the terminating ISP level. Much easier to implement and for the 'authorities' to query.
tupilaq 10y ago
Whilst at first glance this doesn't look altogether fair, I can understand why its been done. The government should not be able to use the tools of state to suppress legitimate parliamentary opposition. There would be nothing to stop the party in power using the law to specifically target opposing parties. For the rest of us here in the UK, your traffic is already being collated and probably has been for some time.
- amelius 10y ago
  > The government should not be able to use the tools of state to suppress legitimate parliamentary opposition. There would be nothing to stop the party in power using the law to specifically target opposing parties. Why not introduce a law that further decouples intelligence agencies and the government. It could be made mandatory that information released by agencies are released to all members of parliament. This way, the government gets more transparency, and the people also get more transparency indirectly. Just my 2 pence.
  - lostboys67 10y ago
    That would require all MP's to be vetted :-)
    - amelius 10y ago
      We could start by disclosing only (detailed) meta-information. Or we could choose 1 MP per party to be informed.
      - pjc50 10y ago
        I'd like to see the government forced to give Special Branch info to Sinn Fein, that would be hilarious.
      - toyg 10y ago
        The Leader of the Opposition is already in Privy Council, which (I believe) means he'll get most of the security briefs he wants to. He should probably be in COBRA too, but I don't think that's the case at the moment.
- stevetrewick 10y ago
  I think everyone can understand why it's been done. Because parliamentarians have looked at the legislation and come to the conclusion that it would infringe on what they believe to be their legitimate privileges. It's just that they don't believe those same privileges should extend to everyone else. Note the use of the word 'privileges' rather than rights, because once parliament starts making that distinction between groups that have them and groups that don't that's exactly what they become.
- JshWright 10y ago
  Why not go the other direction? All government business (emails, phone records, use of official computers, etc) should be public information. You can't blackmail someone with something everyone knows... (Obvious exceptions would be necessary for things that are truly national security secrets, etc).
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    In theory it is. That's what the FOIA does. Problem is there are lots of exemptions.
- Sean1708 10y ago
  It can only be accessed with a warrant, so what are the politicians worried about? If they have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear.
secfirstmd 10y ago
Politicians making one rule for the plebs and one rule for themselves? Well I never!
- ghostDancer 10y ago
  Politicians are the new noble class, it's like middle age but instead of count/dukes and the rest we now have politicians. Maybe we need another french revolution.
  - gmac 10y ago
    Please, enough of this nonsense. What we need is for people to vote for better politicians. To my mind, the main obstacle to that is the awful UK press, and the increasing extent to which the BBC is a government broadcaster rather than a public broadcaster.
    - probablybroken 10y ago
      It will be hard for people to vote for better politicians, so long as those politicians who are allowed to represent an existing party have to be selected by the party itself.
      - gmac 10y ago
        A large part of the problem is some of the existing parties, sure. But in Brighton, for example, we have Caroline Lucas, who is a wonderful MP.
        secfirstmd 10y ago
        Jeremy Corbyn for example is actually a decent human being (can vouch for this as work with him a bit in Westminster), despite some of his policies. However he is hounded out by the media and political class.
        10y ago
rl3 10y ago
Normally this would be a positive feature, since it (in theory) serves to protect politicians from being coerced or blackmailed. However, I can't help but think it's the same gutless people that voted this in simply protecting their own interests above all else. On the other hand, the protections may serve useful some day should they suddenly locate their spines—or perhaps a wave of vertebrate politicians somehow takes office. Either way, the protections would make it easier for the newly-granted surveillance powers to be revoked. Wishful thinking, of course. At least the UK doesn't waste time on charades like we do here in the US—serving up deprecated or redundant surveillance programs on the altar of political sacrifice while other, more compartmented programs (usually broader and more invasive in scope) seamlessly take their place. Then again, perhaps there's just not enough public opposition to justify the effort in the first place.
- deutronium 10y ago
  I'm not sure how it's a positive feature at all, why should they be treated differently from the rest of us.
  - dom0 10y ago
    I'm not sure why anyone would expect the agencies to actually adhere to these laws (they didn't before anyway). Having a nice bucket of kompromat on every relevant politician is rather enticing.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      They claimed to. The fact that oversight failed for years doesn't mean the agencies ignored the law - there are reasonable interpretations to most law. It's good some of it has been test by the courts. It's frustrating it took so long. It's worrying that new law is drafted that appears to ignore previous court rulings. There are exemptions in English an European law about crime prevention but it's surprising that "slurp all the data" meets the prpotional test.
    - rl3 10y ago
      The ultimate justification for spying on politicians is under the guise of counterintelligence. Have to make sure they're not under the influence of foreign powers, or leaking classified information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIPAC_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIP... Of course, sometimes it's just easier to poorly fabricate supposedly-intercepted communications, do the political damage, and then refuse to divulge any evidence citing either classification grounds or the absence of an investigation.
rebuilder 10y ago
When they say records are not able to be accessed without a warrant, do they mean that or do they mean it's illegal to access the records without a warrant?
- rl3 10y ago
  That is an excellent question. The NSA developments in recent years have shown that while privacy protections do exist that limit access to collected data (e.g. FISA warrants), they're still collecting everything on everyone regardless. The intercepted data then rots in a huge database for years at a minimum—in practice probably indefinitely. In what was one of the the most brilliant legal/public relations plays in recent history, NSA decided to play a shell game with the definitions of the terms "collection" and "targeting", redefining them (when convenient) as the accessing of data—by humans—that's already been intercepted and stored.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    With accessing further defined as an actual human looking at it, not a computer parsing it or generating statistics over the collected data of individuals in aggregate.
    - rl3 10y ago
      Updated my comment to reflect that, thanks. A good example of the distinction is the raw audio of a domestic phone call in the US. First it's intercepted in bulk, then automatically sent to DSP hardware for transcription into a searchable text log. That wouldn't qualify as "collection" as the NSA defines it until a human analyst actually listened to or laid eyes upon the data. Automated analysis programs looking for keywords or specific patterns of behavior within the data probably require legal authorization as well. However, it's unclear if the legal authorizations such programs operate under are broad in nature, or issued individually in a more explicit manner.
ionised 10y ago
Seriously, bring out the guillotine. We are WAY overdue for a culling of the ruling class.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  Revolutions are always followed by a new set of leaders, often worse than what was there before.
  - ionised 10y ago
    Often, not always. I'm under no illusion that revolutions are bloodless, but I believe that sometimes they are the the only option when system becomes so corrupt and rigged in favour of a small, wealthy, ruling elite. The French Revolution for example which was grisly as all fuck and the years of instability afterwards can not be understated. Yet I do believe that what eventually came out of it (the French Republic) is far, far better than what came before the people started chopping the heads off the insane, greedy, oppressive aristrocracy. There are of course counter-examples. The Russian revolution. Though was the revolution itself the problem there, or the people that commandeered it for themselves in the years afterwards (e.g. Stalin)? I cannot see a way to fix the current system. The populace is so suppressed in ways that are sometimes subtle as fuck. Decades of demagogue politicians playing on fears, dividing the demographics into us-versus-them tribes out for blood, fostering the paranoia and fear of the foreigner, engaging in massive orgies of deregulation of financial services that cause crash after econimic crash, where the average schmuck picks up the bill and those reponsible get to carry on as normal. Repealing basic services like welfare and healthcare, fostering resentment between age groups, racial groups and classes as a misdirection of attention from the actual cause of our current ills, socially irresponsible banks and financial services that have no tangible value to society other than to move money around. Intelligence services and police forces focused on inward threats from their own people lest they somehow upset the status quo of funneling up the wealth of nations into the hands of a few oligarchs at the top of the pyramid. Western democracy is completely fucked. It has been corrupted and made a sick facsimile of what it was intended to be. There is no fixing this system without massive civil unrest, and that impending civil unrest is why (I believe) we are witnessing the insance lurch towards authoritarianism and watering down of basic rights all over Europe and the US, it's those with a lot to lose preparing themselves. And they are winning. They will continue to fuck us all as long as we keep falling for the whole 'terrorist', 'immigrants', 'paedophile', 'hackers' bullshit as a reason why they must keep taking away our rights and liberties. We are frogs slowly boiling alive in the cooking pot.
mike-cardwell 10y ago
"Internet connection records – a history of every website that someone has visited, but not every page – will still be collected for MPs" So at least if a shifty employee feels like taking a look at the data, or leaks the data, or an ISP gets hacked, our MP's browsing history will be exposed too.
- wlkr 10y ago
  Unfortunately I don't think that the retention aspect will be revoked - no matter how much it's detested - but I do believe the only way that the government will tighten access is when a few people inevitably leak at best embarassing data on members of the political class. The lack of technological literacy amongst the populus and the utter contempt which the government has towards privacy and anonymity is very disheartening.
karmacoda 10y ago
The UK is as corrupt as everyone claims Russia is, starting with the BBC. Theresa May has turned out to be a tyrant. As a Brit, I don't know if I'm more disgusted by the arrogance of the ruling class, or the apathy of the subservient working class. Dystopia is here. Talk of bloody revolution is not necessary - the first cyber revolution?
- Fifer82 10y ago
  I am glad to see this rise in people who are actively realizing that BBC News is State Media. The government are using the grey vote to take away wiggle room that they don't understand and know that younger generations don't want. The BBC and News Papers play a strong role in where the country goes right now. It makes me sick and deeply irritated so I try not to think about that too much.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  If its any consolidation the same is true of the US. I'd wager if you looked deep enough the same entities that have corrupted the UK also corrupted the US and Russia.
- jahnu 10y ago
  Please. This is hyperbole of the first order. http://www.transparency.org/country#GBR http://www.transparency.org/country#GBR http://www.transparency.org/country#RUS http://www.transparency.org/country#RUS
  - logingone 10y ago
    My first thought is of the repeated derailing of the investigation into the political class paedophile investigation.
  - yAnonymous 10y ago
    "Corruption perception index" That's the problem. Corruption in the UK isn't perceived as such, because they go to greater lengths to hide it. That doesn't change the fact that UK politics are rotten to the core and their politics have a much bigger global effect. Remember when London bankers recently manipulated the stock market and got away with it? And let's not ignore that Transparency International themselves are somewhat shady. They gave Hillary Clinton an award for integrity and that's only the funniest of their failings.
Fjolsvith 10y ago
Next up, Politicians exempt themselves from losing office.
johngalt 10y ago
Before anyone looks down their nose at the UK. This is really common in the US as well. If the law is onerous, then there will be exceptions for the politically connected. If the law is helpful or permissive, then it will apply to the politically connected first. A good barometer for deciding if proposed legislation is helpful or harmful: figure out who the law applies to first and who it applies to last.
- javiramos 10y ago
  I am very curious about this phenomenon. Do you have any examples or references?
  - arca_vorago 10y ago
    Insider trading not being illegal for congress comes to mind. Immunity from prosecution for revealing classified information on the house floor as well. Those are the two I always think of when pondering this subject.
    - jan888 10y ago
      But we don't even have insider trading laws. Insider trading is something the courts came up with based on an expanded meaning of fraud.
      - arca_vorago 10y ago
        Wait, are you saying insider trading laws are actually just extended use of fraud laws, but no laws specifically for insider trading? If so, I find that very interesting.
        jan888 10y ago
        Yes. There is no law against insider trading, just the SEC and judges thinking it's really bad so we should punish it even if Congress never got around to passing an actual law against it. See here for one example [0]. The SEC does have rules against it, so it's not entirely on a case-by-case basis [1]. It's just the SEC isn't supposed to write law. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-11/whats-next-for-insider-trading-law https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-11/whats-nex... [1] http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Create 10y ago
We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world. This should not actually be a complicated inquiry. https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRe... Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself.

159 points by Liriel 10y ago

Slightly related question, does anyone know if these laws are backdated. I.e a year's worth of data retention is that available to the list of access from now? As in have ISP already been collecting? Has the data collection started? Is it about to start?

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
'Has the data collection started?' I think we can assume it's been going on for years already.
dingaling 10y ago
> Has the data collection started? Is it about to start? At the behest of this Act? No, not yet. It has yet to be determined and ordered how "Internet Connection Records" will be collected and stored; perhaps this will occur at backhauls and exchange levels, rather than at the terminating ISP level. Much easier to implement and for the 'authorities' to query.

tupilaq 10y ago

Whilst at first glance this doesn't look altogether fair, I can understand why its been done. The government should not be able to use the tools of state to suppress legitimate parliamentary opposition. There would be nothing to stop the party in power using the law to specifically target opposing parties. For the rest of us here in the UK, your traffic is already being collated and probably has been for some time.

amelius 10y ago
> The government should not be able to use the tools of state to suppress legitimate parliamentary opposition. There would be nothing to stop the party in power using the law to specifically target opposing parties. Why not introduce a law that further decouples intelligence agencies and the government. It could be made mandatory that information released by agencies are released to all members of parliament. This way, the government gets more transparency, and the people also get more transparency indirectly. Just my 2 pence.
- lostboys67 10y ago
  That would require all MP's to be vetted :-)
  - amelius 10y ago
    We could start by disclosing only (detailed) meta-information. Or we could choose 1 MP per party to be informed.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      I'd like to see the government forced to give Special Branch info to Sinn Fein, that would be hilarious.
    - toyg 10y ago
      The Leader of the Opposition is already in Privy Council, which (I believe) means he'll get most of the security briefs he wants to. He should probably be in COBRA too, but I don't think that's the case at the moment.
stevetrewick 10y ago
I think everyone can understand why it's been done. Because parliamentarians have looked at the legislation and come to the conclusion that it would infringe on what they believe to be their legitimate privileges. It's just that they don't believe those same privileges should extend to everyone else. Note the use of the word 'privileges' rather than rights, because once parliament starts making that distinction between groups that have them and groups that don't that's exactly what they become.
JshWright 10y ago
Why not go the other direction? All government business (emails, phone records, use of official computers, etc) should be public information. You can't blackmail someone with something everyone knows... (Obvious exceptions would be necessary for things that are truly national security secrets, etc).
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  In theory it is. That's what the FOIA does. Problem is there are lots of exemptions.
Sean1708 10y ago
It can only be accessed with a warrant, so what are the politicians worried about? If they have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear.

secfirstmd 10y ago

Politicians making one rule for the plebs and one rule for themselves? Well I never!

ghostDancer 10y ago
Politicians are the new noble class, it's like middle age but instead of count/dukes and the rest we now have politicians. Maybe we need another french revolution.
- gmac 10y ago
  Please, enough of this nonsense. What we need is for people to vote for better politicians. To my mind, the main obstacle to that is the awful UK press, and the increasing extent to which the BBC is a government broadcaster rather than a public broadcaster.
  - probablybroken 10y ago
    It will be hard for people to vote for better politicians, so long as those politicians who are allowed to represent an existing party have to be selected by the party itself.
    - gmac 10y ago
      A large part of the problem is some of the existing parties, sure. But in Brighton, for example, we have Caroline Lucas, who is a wonderful MP.
      - secfirstmd 10y ago
        Jeremy Corbyn for example is actually a decent human being (can vouch for this as work with him a bit in Westminster), despite some of his policies. However he is hounded out by the media and political class.
        10y ago

rl3 10y ago

Normally this would be a positive feature, since it (in theory) serves to protect politicians from being coerced or blackmailed. However, I can't help but think it's the same gutless people that voted this in simply protecting their own interests above all else. On the other hand, the protections may serve useful some day should they suddenly locate their spines—or perhaps a wave of vertebrate politicians somehow takes office. Either way, the protections would make it easier for the newly-granted surveillance powers to be revoked. Wishful thinking, of course. At least the UK doesn't waste time on charades like we do here in the US—serving up deprecated or redundant surveillance programs on the altar of political sacrifice while other, more compartmented programs (usually broader and more invasive in scope) seamlessly take their place. Then again, perhaps there's just not enough public opposition to justify the effort in the first place.

deutronium 10y ago
I'm not sure how it's a positive feature at all, why should they be treated differently from the rest of us.
- dom0 10y ago
  I'm not sure why anyone would expect the agencies to actually adhere to these laws (they didn't before anyway). Having a nice bucket of kompromat on every relevant politician is rather enticing.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    They claimed to. The fact that oversight failed for years doesn't mean the agencies ignored the law - there are reasonable interpretations to most law. It's good some of it has been test by the courts. It's frustrating it took so long. It's worrying that new law is drafted that appears to ignore previous court rulings. There are exemptions in English an European law about crime prevention but it's surprising that "slurp all the data" meets the prpotional test.
  - rl3 10y ago
    The ultimate justification for spying on politicians is under the guise of counterintelligence. Have to make sure they're not under the influence of foreign powers, or leaking classified information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIPAC_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIP... Of course, sometimes it's just easier to poorly fabricate supposedly-intercepted communications, do the political damage, and then refuse to divulge any evidence citing either classification grounds or the absence of an investigation.

rebuilder 10y ago

When they say records are not able to be accessed without a warrant, do they mean that or do they mean it's illegal to access the records without a warrant?

rl3 10y ago
That is an excellent question. The NSA developments in recent years have shown that while privacy protections do exist that limit access to collected data (e.g. FISA warrants), they're still collecting everything on everyone regardless. The intercepted data then rots in a huge database for years at a minimum—in practice probably indefinitely. In what was one of the the most brilliant legal/public relations plays in recent history, NSA decided to play a shell game with the definitions of the terms "collection" and "targeting", redefining them (when convenient) as the accessing of data—by humans—that's already been intercepted and stored.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  With accessing further defined as an actual human looking at it, not a computer parsing it or generating statistics over the collected data of individuals in aggregate.
  - rl3 10y ago
    Updated my comment to reflect that, thanks. A good example of the distinction is the raw audio of a domestic phone call in the US. First it's intercepted in bulk, then automatically sent to DSP hardware for transcription into a searchable text log. That wouldn't qualify as "collection" as the NSA defines it until a human analyst actually listened to or laid eyes upon the data. Automated analysis programs looking for keywords or specific patterns of behavior within the data probably require legal authorization as well. However, it's unclear if the legal authorizations such programs operate under are broad in nature, or issued individually in a more explicit manner.

ionised 10y ago

Seriously, bring out the guillotine. We are WAY overdue for a culling of the ruling class.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
Revolutions are always followed by a new set of leaders, often worse than what was there before.
- ionised 10y ago
  Often, not always. I'm under no illusion that revolutions are bloodless, but I believe that sometimes they are the the only option when system becomes so corrupt and rigged in favour of a small, wealthy, ruling elite. The French Revolution for example which was grisly as all fuck and the years of instability afterwards can not be understated. Yet I do believe that what eventually came out of it (the French Republic) is far, far better than what came before the people started chopping the heads off the insane, greedy, oppressive aristrocracy. There are of course counter-examples. The Russian revolution. Though was the revolution itself the problem there, or the people that commandeered it for themselves in the years afterwards (e.g. Stalin)? I cannot see a way to fix the current system. The populace is so suppressed in ways that are sometimes subtle as fuck. Decades of demagogue politicians playing on fears, dividing the demographics into us-versus-them tribes out for blood, fostering the paranoia and fear of the foreigner, engaging in massive orgies of deregulation of financial services that cause crash after econimic crash, where the average schmuck picks up the bill and those reponsible get to carry on as normal. Repealing basic services like welfare and healthcare, fostering resentment between age groups, racial groups and classes as a misdirection of attention from the actual cause of our current ills, socially irresponsible banks and financial services that have no tangible value to society other than to move money around. Intelligence services and police forces focused on inward threats from their own people lest they somehow upset the status quo of funneling up the wealth of nations into the hands of a few oligarchs at the top of the pyramid. Western democracy is completely fucked. It has been corrupted and made a sick facsimile of what it was intended to be. There is no fixing this system without massive civil unrest, and that impending civil unrest is why (I believe) we are witnessing the insance lurch towards authoritarianism and watering down of basic rights all over Europe and the US, it's those with a lot to lose preparing themselves. And they are winning. They will continue to fuck us all as long as we keep falling for the whole 'terrorist', 'immigrants', 'paedophile', 'hackers' bullshit as a reason why they must keep taking away our rights and liberties. We are frogs slowly boiling alive in the cooking pot.

mike-cardwell 10y ago

"Internet connection records – a history of every website that someone has visited, but not every page – will still be collected for MPs" So at least if a shifty employee feels like taking a look at the data, or leaks the data, or an ISP gets hacked, our MP's browsing history will be exposed too.

wlkr 10y ago
Unfortunately I don't think that the retention aspect will be revoked - no matter how much it's detested - but I do believe the only way that the government will tighten access is when a few people inevitably leak at best embarassing data on members of the political class. The lack of technological literacy amongst the populus and the utter contempt which the government has towards privacy and anonymity is very disheartening.

karmacoda 10y ago

The UK is as corrupt as everyone claims Russia is, starting with the BBC. Theresa May has turned out to be a tyrant. As a Brit, I don't know if I'm more disgusted by the arrogance of the ruling class, or the apathy of the subservient working class. Dystopia is here. Talk of bloody revolution is not necessary - the first cyber revolution?

Fifer82 10y ago
I am glad to see this rise in people who are actively realizing that BBC News is State Media. The government are using the grey vote to take away wiggle room that they don't understand and know that younger generations don't want. The BBC and News Papers play a strong role in where the country goes right now. It makes me sick and deeply irritated so I try not to think about that too much.
cmdrfred 10y ago
If its any consolidation the same is true of the US. I'd wager if you looked deep enough the same entities that have corrupted the UK also corrupted the US and Russia.
jahnu 10y ago
Please. This is hyperbole of the first order. http://www.transparency.org/country#GBR http://www.transparency.org/country#GBR http://www.transparency.org/country#RUS http://www.transparency.org/country#RUS
- logingone 10y ago
  My first thought is of the repeated derailing of the investigation into the political class paedophile investigation.
- yAnonymous 10y ago
  "Corruption perception index" That's the problem. Corruption in the UK isn't perceived as such, because they go to greater lengths to hide it. That doesn't change the fact that UK politics are rotten to the core and their politics have a much bigger global effect. Remember when London bankers recently manipulated the stock market and got away with it? And let's not ignore that Transparency International themselves are somewhat shady. They gave Hillary Clinton an award for integrity and that's only the funniest of their failings.

Fjolsvith 10y ago

Next up, Politicians exempt themselves from losing office.

johngalt 10y ago

Before anyone looks down their nose at the UK. This is really common in the US as well. If the law is onerous, then there will be exceptions for the politically connected. If the law is helpful or permissive, then it will apply to the politically connected first. A good barometer for deciding if proposed legislation is helpful or harmful: figure out who the law applies to first and who it applies to last.

javiramos 10y ago
I am very curious about this phenomenon. Do you have any examples or references?
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  Insider trading not being illegal for congress comes to mind. Immunity from prosecution for revealing classified information on the house floor as well. Those are the two I always think of when pondering this subject.
  - jan888 10y ago
    But we don't even have insider trading laws. Insider trading is something the courts came up with based on an expanded meaning of fraud.
    - arca_vorago 10y ago
      Wait, are you saying insider trading laws are actually just extended use of fraud laws, but no laws specifically for insider trading? If so, I find that very interesting.
      - jan888 10y ago
        Yes. There is no law against insider trading, just the SEC and judges thinking it's really bad so we should punish it even if Congress never got around to passing an actual law against it. See here for one example [0]. The SEC does have rules against it, so it's not entirely on a case-by-case basis [1]. It's just the SEC isn't supposed to write law. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-11/whats-next-for-insider-trading-law https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-11/whats-nex... [1] http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Create 10y ago

We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States government has led not only us but the world. This should not actually be a complicated inquiry. https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRe... Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself.