4 ms·

"The proposed Communications Data Bill does not want access to the content of our communications but does want to ensure that enough data is available in the af

by cjrp 13y ago

"The proposed Communications Data Bill does not want access to the content of our communications but does want to ensure that enough data is available in the aftermath of an attack to help investigators establish 'who, where and when' were involved in planning or supporting it." So there's a limitation in the bill which says that the proposed data can only be collected following an attack? Not that I've seen.

alan_cx 13y ago
Attack, or protest march?
Silhouette 13y ago
It's also surprising that they claim to need all these powers without a warrant if they're only going to be used after an event to try and figure out what happened. I do think it's important not to over-react to things like this and neuter the security services when they really do have legitimate grounds to investigate someone and they really are doing their jobs under a reasonable level of scrutiny and oversight. However, how often would security services really need to act so fast that they had to circumvent getting a named minister to personally sign off on their actions (and accept responsibility for them, presumably) or getting a court order for surveillance based on making a case that it was a reasonable to invade someone's privacy under the circumstances? William Hague keeps talking about how all of this spying is done under a legal framework, but I think he loses a lot of credibility making that argument as part of an administration that argues for secret courts and the like, standing next to the senior foreign representative of a nation that uses blatant legal trickery so it can detain people indefinitely without trial contrary to even its own normal legal rules. What's the point of having a legal framework if most people can't see that law in action or if you can just circumvent the framework when it's inconvenient?

by cjrp 13y ago

alan_cx 13y ago

Attack, or protest march?

Silhouette 13y ago

It's also surprising that they claim to need all these powers without a warrant if they're only going to be used after an event to try and figure out what happened. I do think it's important not to over-react to things like this and neuter the security services when they really do have legitimate grounds to investigate someone and they really are doing their jobs under a reasonable level of scrutiny and oversight. However, how often would security services really need to act so fast that they had to circumvent getting a named minister to personally sign off on their actions (and accept responsibility for them, presumably) or getting a court order for surveillance based on making a case that it was a reasonable to invade someone's privacy under the circumstances? William Hague keeps talking about how all of this spying is done under a legal framework, but I think he loses a lot of credibility making that argument as part of an administration that argues for secret courts and the like, standing next to the senior foreign representative of a nation that uses blatant legal trickery so it can detain people indefinitely without trial contrary to even its own normal legal rules. What's the point of having a legal framework if most people can't see that law in action or if you can just circumvent the framework when it's inconvenient?