3 ms·

sigh In preparation, where's the best place for a startup hacker to emigrate to nowadays?

DanBC 15y ago
The new laws don't grant access to content. And GCHQ already have access to this data, the new law just makes access 'real time' rather than retrospective.
- colinhowe 15y ago
  "The information commissioner said public bodies not involved in dealing with serious crime or national security, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, should have to apply to a court before access was granted." I don't have much of a problem with GCHQ using it... but the Department for Work and Pensions? Also, a lack of warrants is concerning. It feels very much like a law that could be exploited by anyone.
  - mseebach 15y ago
    > Also, a lack of warrants is concerning. It's right there in the bit you quoted: > the Department for Work and Pensions, should have to apply to a court before access was granted
  - DanBC 15y ago
    DWP handles benefits. Organised crime is involved in a lot of benefit fraud. Allowing the DWP to have access to anything without a warrant would be bad. Allowing them to have access to destination / address data with a warrant might be okay. Allowing them to have access to content data is probably a bad thing. I think I'd prefer Serious Organised Crime Agency to all of it; and I'd prefer some better oversight. Whether that's a warrant (good) or a chief inspector of another force (bad) remains to be seen. Don't forget that this is, essentially, just an extension to things like RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to cover new forms of communication. I agree that we need to be careful that they don't kludge in things like "looking at the content is fine" or "you don't need warrants".
swombat 15y ago
Not a definitive answer, but I quite liked the fact that my home country, Switzerland, apart from being neutral and having a government that doesn't have executive power centralised in a single person's hands, and having a relatively sane reaction to violent acts (see the Zug shooting, for example), also recently made a public statement that they did not feel that the issues that the movie/music industries face warranted any change of fair use or internet monitoring laws.

DanBC 15y ago

The new laws don't grant access to content. And GCHQ already have access to this data, the new law just makes access 'real time' rather than retrospective.

colinhowe 15y ago
"The information commissioner said public bodies not involved in dealing with serious crime or national security, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, should have to apply to a court before access was granted." I don't have much of a problem with GCHQ using it... but the Department for Work and Pensions? Also, a lack of warrants is concerning. It feels very much like a law that could be exploited by anyone.
- mseebach 15y ago
  > Also, a lack of warrants is concerning. It's right there in the bit you quoted: > the Department for Work and Pensions, should have to apply to a court before access was granted
- DanBC 15y ago
  DWP handles benefits. Organised crime is involved in a lot of benefit fraud. Allowing the DWP to have access to anything without a warrant would be bad. Allowing them to have access to destination / address data with a warrant might be okay. Allowing them to have access to content data is probably a bad thing. I think I'd prefer Serious Organised Crime Agency to all of it; and I'd prefer some better oversight. Whether that's a warrant (good) or a chief inspector of another force (bad) remains to be seen. Don't forget that this is, essentially, just an extension to things like RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to cover new forms of communication. I agree that we need to be careful that they don't kludge in things like "looking at the content is fine" or "you don't need warrants".

swombat 15y ago

Not a definitive answer, but I quite liked the fact that my home country, Switzerland, apart from being neutral and having a government that doesn't have executive power centralised in a single person's hands, and having a relatively sane reaction to violent acts (see the Zug shooting, for example), also recently made a public statement that they did not feel that the issues that the movie/music industries face warranted any change of fair use or internet monitoring laws.