4 ms·

UK emergency phone and internet data storage law to be brought in

76 points by timthorn 12y ago

UVB-76 12y ago
Disgraceful. All we have to do is mention "national security" and we can enshrine whichever human rights violation we fancy into legislation?
- isomorphic 12y ago
  Soon they won't even bother with that pretense. It's already happening in the US; people who disagree with pervasive surveillance are "extremists." And so power seeks to preserve itself.
- Ntrails 12y ago
  Please don't assume that your view on what constitutes a human right represents that of the majority of the population. Which, after all, is what government represents.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    I don't think most "democratic" governments in their current form are a very accurate representation of what people want. The way it works now is that people get to vote once every 4 years on some campaign promises that likely won't be implemented. And then the voted in government/parliament can basically do whatever it wants. Also, you're wrong. The human rights in Europe are not "up for debate". It's the law, and the highest Court in Europe has ruled that such data retention is illegal. You don't get to say "yeah, but I don't think those are really human rights".
    - Ntrails 12y ago
      If that were the case it wouldn't be possible for the government to create a new law that over-ruled the highest court in Europe, surely...
  - UVB-76 12y ago
    I'm not assuming anything. As a European citizen my rights are enshrined in the ECHR. In April the European Court of Justice ruled the previous 2006 Data Retention Directive invalid, stating that it severely interfered with two of these rights (the right to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data)
noja 12y ago
Oh for fuck's sake, really. And the LibDems agreed to this? Fuck them too. WTF. If anyone wants to fight this, please donate a few pounds a month to these guys, they're brilliant: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/
- insky 12y ago
  And there I was feeling a little sorry for the LibDems after their euro defeat, hoping that they still had some sense of morality. The main UK parties are siding this and fracking. The political landscape in Britain is looking very bleak.
  - smackay 12y ago
    All the more reason to encourage a vote for an independent Scotland on Sept 18th. You'll be doing Scotland a favour and there will be a friendly place to stay if things get too fucked up south of the border.
    - pling 12y ago
      I'm seriously considering that as an option at the moment. England is turning into a surveillance state (something I have been warned many a time to keep one eye on by a good friend who lived through some bad shit in East Germany), half the population is out for the blood of anyone darker than a sheet of A4 paper, military awareness and propaganda is at an all time high and the economic disparity between the rich and the poor is INSANE. It's rife for an explosion of sorts soon. I don't want to be here when it goes. Scotland I believe would survive this if independent.
    - peteretep 12y ago
      Yes, this is definitely true. All of the issues that rich countries have with their governments and privacy will certainly not apply to that mystical, magical, tartan land, whose politicians shit rainbows.
      - 12y ago
pling 12y ago
Fuck them all to hell. I have nothing more to say.
knotty66 12y ago
Don't the security services have this data already? Through Tempora/XKeyscore etc. So national security should already be covered.
- noja 12y ago
  "The government is tacitly admitting that our current data retention laws are illegal and that they are required to re-legislate..." - https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press/releases/threat-of-legal-action-not-terrorism-behind-calls-for-emergency-data-retention-legislation https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press/releases/threat-of-leg...
amirmc 12y ago
> "More controversially the new law will also produce what is being described as a "clearer legal framework" to allow access to the content of calls, texts and emails after a warrant is signed by a senior government minister." Government ministers can sign warrants? Is this new? It does not sound like a good idea.
- pjc50 12y ago
  The Home Secretary has a wide range of powers to authorize all kinds of things that aren't a good idea, like secret trials and "public interest immunity certificates". I believe they can also direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute (or not) crimes.
makomk 12y ago
For those who haven't been following UK politics, there used to be an EU-wide law doing this. That law was created and pushed for by a previous UK government, and the reason they did it as an EU law rather than a UK one was to avoid all the pesky democratic accountability involved in passing UK laws. The ECJ recently squashed the existing law, so they tried to sneak a UK one in by not telling most MPs about the vote and got publicly rumbled by Tom Watson MP last night.
- pling 12y ago
  That's a perfectly good review of the situation. You know when they try and sneak something in that the system is broken. The question we have to ask: Do these people really represent our best interests at this point in time? If the answer is no, something needs to be done, but over 100 years of population pacification (since the world wars) and the recent 30 years of entertainment-driven culture has sucked the energy away from any dissidents. It's all working nicely for everyone, until one day it doesn't.
  - insky 12y ago
    The energy is still there, it's just misdirected.
- PM_Tech 12y ago
  Thank you for that insight. I couldn't upvote it enough.
tomp 12y ago
This is how "democracy" works. Courts declare something illegal. Government changes the laws. All without the consent of the ruled.
joosters 12y ago
"...all-party talks agreed that this law would enshrine existing rights and not be used to extend them..." I am certain that they will sneak more powers into this bill than they had before.
- peteretep 12y ago
  Can you give more details on who "they" are, and any insight you have in to the nefarious schemes they're hatching?
  - joosters 12y ago
    The government, police and security services. I never mentioned any 'nefarious schemes' so you appear to have filled that in yourself. My guess is that GCHQ and others have demanded more powers (some of which to cover stuff that they already did but they knew was illegal all along)
konradb 12y ago
"The law will include a so-called sunset clause - ensuring that these powers will die in 2016 - so there will be a longer and wider debate about what replaces them." Because something has to replace them, right? Can't just not do anything. Got to keep the country safe... /s
- pcrh 12y ago
  This smells like a rat. They appear to be introducing this law to protect their current activities, which were declared "invalid" by the European Court of Justice. The sunset clause is an attempt to prolong the debate to the point where the public loses interest, at which point all that needs to be passed in 2016 is a simple "confirmation of existing practice" for this to become permanent. I wonder, though, how much the European Court's ruling is binding on the UK, and if they would fall foul of it if this law is passed.
Guejcjdsjrhdb 12y ago
Time to acquire a taste for victory gin...
ig1 12y ago
Write to your MP about this today - it has a much bigger impact than complaining on HN: https://www.writetothem.com/ https://www.writetothem.com/
- coob 12y ago
  Sadly, the law will be passed before their researcher gets round to reading your letter.
  - hackerboos 12y ago
    >their researcher Read unpaid intern.
- jsmcgd 12y ago
  I just did this. I encourage everyone else who can to do the same. It may not have any effect now however it will let our representatives know that their actions are not going unnoticed and that we're unhappy.
Create 12y 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. http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself. http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999
beaker52 12y ago
Any legislation they like is put through because the population are distracted by shiny iPhones and are too busy hating each other to notice or find the energy to take action in response. "Quick, let's get this through before the pedo news really dies out" (Britain is being fed news of pedophile celebrities and government ministers at the moment, causing 'outrage')
greenyoda 12y ago
I doubt that retaining this kind of information is going to make the UK any safer. The truly dangerous people are going to know that their calls and texts are being monitored, so they'll just start communicating in more secure ways: using VPNs or Tor to get to web sites in other countries, having face to face meetings, etc. Just as in the U.S., the national surveillance apparatus is going to be used to go after drug dealers rather than terrorists, but the justification is always going to be "fighting terrorism", since that's what always seems to convince people to give up their civil liberties.

76 points by timthorn 12y ago

Disgraceful. All we have to do is mention "national security" and we can enshrine whichever human rights violation we fancy into legislation?

isomorphic 12y ago
Soon they won't even bother with that pretense. It's already happening in the US; people who disagree with pervasive surveillance are "extremists." And so power seeks to preserve itself.
Ntrails 12y ago
Please don't assume that your view on what constitutes a human right represents that of the majority of the population. Which, after all, is what government represents.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  I don't think most "democratic" governments in their current form are a very accurate representation of what people want. The way it works now is that people get to vote once every 4 years on some campaign promises that likely won't be implemented. And then the voted in government/parliament can basically do whatever it wants. Also, you're wrong. The human rights in Europe are not "up for debate". It's the law, and the highest Court in Europe has ruled that such data retention is illegal. You don't get to say "yeah, but I don't think those are really human rights".
  - Ntrails 12y ago
    If that were the case it wouldn't be possible for the government to create a new law that over-ruled the highest court in Europe, surely...
- UVB-76 12y ago
  I'm not assuming anything. As a European citizen my rights are enshrined in the ECHR. In April the European Court of Justice ruled the previous 2006 Data Retention Directive invalid, stating that it severely interfered with two of these rights (the right to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data)

noja 12y ago

Oh for fuck's sake, really. And the LibDems agreed to this? Fuck them too. WTF. If anyone wants to fight this, please donate a few pounds a month to these guys, they're brilliant: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/

insky 12y ago
And there I was feeling a little sorry for the LibDems after their euro defeat, hoping that they still had some sense of morality. The main UK parties are siding this and fracking. The political landscape in Britain is looking very bleak.
- smackay 12y ago
  All the more reason to encourage a vote for an independent Scotland on Sept 18th. You'll be doing Scotland a favour and there will be a friendly place to stay if things get too fucked up south of the border.
  - pling 12y ago
    I'm seriously considering that as an option at the moment. England is turning into a surveillance state (something I have been warned many a time to keep one eye on by a good friend who lived through some bad shit in East Germany), half the population is out for the blood of anyone darker than a sheet of A4 paper, military awareness and propaganda is at an all time high and the economic disparity between the rich and the poor is INSANE. It's rife for an explosion of sorts soon. I don't want to be here when it goes. Scotland I believe would survive this if independent.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    Yes, this is definitely true. All of the issues that rich countries have with their governments and privacy will certainly not apply to that mystical, magical, tartan land, whose politicians shit rainbows.
    - 12y ago

pling 12y ago

Fuck them all to hell. I have nothing more to say.

knotty66 12y ago

Don't the security services have this data already? Through Tempora/XKeyscore etc. So national security should already be covered.

noja 12y ago
"The government is tacitly admitting that our current data retention laws are illegal and that they are required to re-legislate..." - https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press/releases/threat-of-legal-action-not-terrorism-behind-calls-for-emergency-data-retention-legislation https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press/releases/threat-of-leg...

amirmc 12y ago

> "More controversially the new law will also produce what is being described as a "clearer legal framework" to allow access to the content of calls, texts and emails after a warrant is signed by a senior government minister." Government ministers can sign warrants? Is this new? It does not sound like a good idea.

pjc50 12y ago
The Home Secretary has a wide range of powers to authorize all kinds of things that aren't a good idea, like secret trials and "public interest immunity certificates". I believe they can also direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute (or not) crimes.

makomk 12y ago

For those who haven't been following UK politics, there used to be an EU-wide law doing this. That law was created and pushed for by a previous UK government, and the reason they did it as an EU law rather than a UK one was to avoid all the pesky democratic accountability involved in passing UK laws. The ECJ recently squashed the existing law, so they tried to sneak a UK one in by not telling most MPs about the vote and got publicly rumbled by Tom Watson MP last night.

pling 12y ago
That's a perfectly good review of the situation. You know when they try and sneak something in that the system is broken. The question we have to ask: Do these people really represent our best interests at this point in time? If the answer is no, something needs to be done, but over 100 years of population pacification (since the world wars) and the recent 30 years of entertainment-driven culture has sucked the energy away from any dissidents. It's all working nicely for everyone, until one day it doesn't.
- insky 12y ago
  The energy is still there, it's just misdirected.
PM_Tech 12y ago
Thank you for that insight. I couldn't upvote it enough.

tomp 12y ago

This is how "democracy" works. Courts declare something illegal. Government changes the laws. All without the consent of the ruled.

joosters 12y ago

"...all-party talks agreed that this law would enshrine existing rights and not be used to extend them..." I am certain that they will sneak more powers into this bill than they had before.

peteretep 12y ago
Can you give more details on who "they" are, and any insight you have in to the nefarious schemes they're hatching?
- joosters 12y ago
  The government, police and security services. I never mentioned any 'nefarious schemes' so you appear to have filled that in yourself. My guess is that GCHQ and others have demanded more powers (some of which to cover stuff that they already did but they knew was illegal all along)

konradb 12y ago

"The law will include a so-called sunset clause - ensuring that these powers will die in 2016 - so there will be a longer and wider debate about what replaces them." Because something has to replace them, right? Can't just not do anything. Got to keep the country safe... /s

pcrh 12y ago
This smells like a rat. They appear to be introducing this law to protect their current activities, which were declared "invalid" by the European Court of Justice. The sunset clause is an attempt to prolong the debate to the point where the public loses interest, at which point all that needs to be passed in 2016 is a simple "confirmation of existing practice" for this to become permanent. I wonder, though, how much the European Court's ruling is binding on the UK, and if they would fall foul of it if this law is passed.

Guejcjdsjrhdb 12y ago

Time to acquire a taste for victory gin...

ig1 12y ago

Write to your MP about this today - it has a much bigger impact than complaining on HN: https://www.writetothem.com/ https://www.writetothem.com/

coob 12y ago
Sadly, the law will be passed before their researcher gets round to reading your letter.
- hackerboos 12y ago
  >their researcher Read unpaid intern.
jsmcgd 12y ago
I just did this. I encourage everyone else who can to do the same. It may not have any effect now however it will let our representatives know that their actions are not going unnoticed and that we're unhappy.

Create 12y 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. http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html http://snowdenandthefuture.info/events.html Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism itself. http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-24385999

beaker52 12y ago

Any legislation they like is put through because the population are distracted by shiny iPhones and are too busy hating each other to notice or find the energy to take action in response. "Quick, let's get this through before the pedo news really dies out" (Britain is being fed news of pedophile celebrities and government ministers at the moment, causing 'outrage')

greenyoda 12y ago

I doubt that retaining this kind of information is going to make the UK any safer. The truly dangerous people are going to know that their calls and texts are being monitored, so they'll just start communicating in more secure ways: using VPNs or Tor to get to web sites in other countries, having face to face meetings, etc. Just as in the U.S., the national surveillance apparatus is going to be used to go after drug dealers rather than terrorists, but the justification is always going to be "fighting terrorism", since that's what always seems to convince people to give up their civil liberties.