3 ms·

What's the official justification behind this? First, it was terrorism, then maybe a pandemic, what's next? It was all so predictable, and yet so little has be

by Hoasi 7y ago

What's the official justification behind this? First, it was terrorism, then maybe a pandemic, what's next? It was all so predictable, and yet so little has been done to prevent this. Apathy is a powerful tool, how depressing. What would be some practical solutions since democracy doesn't seem to prevent this from happening?

JoeSmithson 7y ago
The justification is linked prominently in TFA http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2020/9780111195499/pdfs/ukdsiod_9780111195499_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2020/9780111195499/pdfs/...
- Hoasi 7y ago
  Yes, and it's very vague indeed: crime, risks and hazards, and fraudulent activities. These are terms that governmental organizations can use as they see fit, depending on the situation.
- thombat 7y ago
  Indeed it is: "These regulations include the addition of five public authorities who will gain the power to obtain communications data as they are increasingly unable to rely on local police forces to investigate crimes on their behalf." It isn't obvious to me that the proper fix for the police being inadequately resourced for investigating crimes is to grant policing powers to a wider range of departments. In principle the police receive both specialist training and supervision to ensure that their powers are properly used; abusive use of the earlier RIPA legislation by councils became notorious, e.g: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-councils-use-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-bin-crimes.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-coun...
  - ljm 7y ago
    This is likely a consequence of the Conservative government continually stripping police funding over the past ten years. I would presume local police forces could handle these requests if they had adequate resources to do so. They frequently do not.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    The police have never investigated all crime. The various tax offices investigate tax fraud; local authority environmental health investigate a variety of piracy and weights and measures crimes; local councils investigate illegal landlords. There are loads of examples of crimes that are not, and never have been, investigated by English police forces. > abusive use of the earlier RIPA legislation by councils became notorious, But this is RIPA working as intended. Pre-RIPA those councils were engaging in this kind of surveillance unchecked. After RIPA they have to justify the surveillance, and we the public now have a way to stop them if they're going too far. RIPA was never intended as "anti terror" law, it was designed to reduce surveillance and bring the rest under a regulatory framework.
    - jen20 7y ago
      The idea that any legislation brought forward since the Blair era was intended to _reduce_ surveillance and authoritarianism is quite simply laughable, though it turns out that May (as Home Secretary) and not Blair (though his government was the worst offender at normalisation of this.
Zenst 7y ago
>What's the official justification behind this? First, it was terrorism, then maybe a pandemic, what's next? Paint me a cynic but I'd not be supprised if we don't see the headline of "Terrorist pandemic" used in headlines within a few years as the definition of `terrorist` is expanded to include everything upto and including a badly worded tweet that is open to strawman interpretations.
PoachedSausage 7y ago
>what's next? Take your pick from the following: The economic fallout of the pandemic -> failed states -> more migration waves..... Don't forget the ongoing climate catastrophe. All things that could be solved without resorting to authoritarianism if we were a little less of an, to paraphrase Q from Star Trek NG, "adolescent child race".

by Hoasi 7y ago

JoeSmithson 7y ago

The justification is linked prominently in TFA http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2020/9780111195499/pdfs/ukdsiod_9780111195499_en.pdf http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2020/9780111195499/pdfs/...

Hoasi 7y ago
Yes, and it's very vague indeed: crime, risks and hazards, and fraudulent activities. These are terms that governmental organizations can use as they see fit, depending on the situation.
thombat 7y ago
Indeed it is: "These regulations include the addition of five public authorities who will gain the power to obtain communications data as they are increasingly unable to rely on local police forces to investigate crimes on their behalf." It isn't obvious to me that the proper fix for the police being inadequately resourced for investigating crimes is to grant policing powers to a wider range of departments. In principle the police receive both specialist training and supervision to ensure that their powers are properly used; abusive use of the earlier RIPA legislation by councils became notorious, e.g: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-councils-use-anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-bin-crimes.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-coun...
- ljm 7y ago
  This is likely a consequence of the Conservative government continually stripping police funding over the past ten years. I would presume local police forces could handle these requests if they had adequate resources to do so. They frequently do not.
- DanBC 7y ago
  The police have never investigated all crime. The various tax offices investigate tax fraud; local authority environmental health investigate a variety of piracy and weights and measures crimes; local councils investigate illegal landlords. There are loads of examples of crimes that are not, and never have been, investigated by English police forces. > abusive use of the earlier RIPA legislation by councils became notorious, But this is RIPA working as intended. Pre-RIPA those councils were engaging in this kind of surveillance unchecked. After RIPA they have to justify the surveillance, and we the public now have a way to stop them if they're going too far. RIPA was never intended as "anti terror" law, it was designed to reduce surveillance and bring the rest under a regulatory framework.
  - jen20 7y ago
    The idea that any legislation brought forward since the Blair era was intended to _reduce_ surveillance and authoritarianism is quite simply laughable, though it turns out that May (as Home Secretary) and not Blair (though his government was the worst offender at normalisation of this.

Zenst 7y ago

>What's the official justification behind this? First, it was terrorism, then maybe a pandemic, what's next? Paint me a cynic but I'd not be supprised if we don't see the headline of "Terrorist pandemic" used in headlines within a few years as the definition of `terrorist` is expanded to include everything upto and including a badly worded tweet that is open to strawman interpretations.

PoachedSausage 7y ago

>what's next? Take your pick from the following: The economic fallout of the pandemic -> failed states -> more migration waves..... Don't forget the ongoing climate catastrophe. All things that could be solved without resorting to authoritarianism if we were a little less of an, to paraphrase Q from Star Trek NG, "adolescent child race".