3 ms·

Is there any reason to expect them to be as dystopian as you predict? Previous laws relating to policing and investigatory powers have been widely criticised b

Is there any reason to expect them to be as dystopian as you predict? Previous laws relating to policing and investigatory powers have been widely criticised by civil rights groups for their overreach and lack of effective oversight and safeguards. We now know that some of those laws have in fact been abused in ways the critics predicted. Secondary legislation has been widely criticised when used as a vehicle for government ministers to make rules with statutory authority while bypassing the usual requirements for Parliamentary scrutiny and approval of new laws. Our Home Secretary is currently attempting to use secondary legislation to implement controversial immigration policies after essentially the same measures were already explicitly blocked by Parliament when they were put forward via primary legislation. So yes - there are unfortunately plenty of precedents both for broad legal powers being abused and for secondary legislation being used to circumvent our normal democratic processes for scrutinising and approving controversial measures. There also seems to be no good reason to assume that the regulator that would be given these new powers and responsibilities actually has the necessary resources or expertise to understand the issues and perform their new role properly. None of this looks encouraging and for rules that could have a profound effect on (among other things) our personal safety and the democratic integrity of our country it seems fair to question whether passing a very broad law that delegates the implementation details to a regulator that may or may not be competent to regulate these areas is really a good idea.

ChrisKnott 3y ago
> "Previous laws relating to policing and investigatory powers have been widely criticised by civil rights groups for their overreach and lack of effective oversight and safeguards. We now know that some of those laws have in fact been abused in ways the critics predicted." What are you referring to here?
- Silhouette 3y ago
  Take RIPA for example. Local authorities have literally deployed drones for covert surveillance. They have invoked powers under the Act in trivial cases such as fly tipping, dog fouling and deciding which school catchment area a child fell within. In some cases they were subsequently criticised for it or even found to have acted unlawfully but that obviously doesn't mean that the intrusion didn't happen or that the victims of that intrusion weren't distressed and possibly harassed as a result prior to some formal legal action going their way often at a much later date. There is absolutely no legitimate justification for local authorities dealing with those kinds of issues to have access to the kinds of lawful surveillance and intrusion powers that RIPA is primarily concerned with. Even if you accept that those powers are justified and necessary in cases such as imminent national security threats or investigating organised crime that still doesn't explain why so many organisations that are not the police, security services or perhaps HMRC need them.

ChrisKnott 3y ago

> "Previous laws relating to policing and investigatory powers have been widely criticised by civil rights groups for their overreach and lack of effective oversight and safeguards. We now know that some of those laws have in fact been abused in ways the critics predicted." What are you referring to here?

Silhouette 3y ago
Take RIPA for example. Local authorities have literally deployed drones for covert surveillance. They have invoked powers under the Act in trivial cases such as fly tipping, dog fouling and deciding which school catchment area a child fell within. In some cases they were subsequently criticised for it or even found to have acted unlawfully but that obviously doesn't mean that the intrusion didn't happen or that the victims of that intrusion weren't distressed and possibly harassed as a result prior to some formal legal action going their way often at a much later date. There is absolutely no legitimate justification for local authorities dealing with those kinds of issues to have access to the kinds of lawful surveillance and intrusion powers that RIPA is primarily concerned with. Even if you accept that those powers are justified and necessary in cases such as imminent national security threats or investigating organised crime that still doesn't explain why so many organisations that are not the police, security services or perhaps HMRC need them.