6 ms·

Emergency phone and internet data storage law to be brought in

112 points by RobAley 12y ago

furyg3 12y ago
> Prime Minister David Cameron and his Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will tell a special cabinet meeting on Thursday that emergency legislation is necessary to keep the country safe. Safe from what, exactly?
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  From PM and deputy PM throwing a tantrum, of course.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  From a mass civil uprising against the increasingly fascistic tack taken by Our Glorious Leaders.
- DanBC 12y ago
  "paedophile MPs?" (From Franke Boyle, but I can't find the tweet at the moment.) > Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle Jul 10 > Oddly, a government that lost 114 files on child abuse thinks it's important to keep a note of every time you post a funny cat video online > Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle Jul 10 > About time we had a new electronic surveillance law to uncover exactly no terrorists and 158 million texts about fucking
  - JonnieCache 12y ago
    How do these people not understand that when they say "we lost the files" the public hears "we definitely did it, and we're probably still doing it." The tory party is now surely the baby-raping party in the minds of everyone who read about that investigation and the "lost" files. TBF not much change there.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - northernmonkey 12y ago
      The truth of course it that lots of MPs do understand how people interpret this kind of thing. Truth is, most MPs are intelligent, reasonable people. Sadly they are often judged for the actions of the few reprehensible MPs that more often than not make it to the front benches.
  - pling 12y ago
    You've got to love Frankie Boyle for saying it how it is. I suspect that the timing of this isn't coincidental as well on the basis that: 1. It was just after the allegations of these files being lost was made (5th July) 2. Everyone's going on holiday soon (22nd July) so apathy is at a high. Not impressed!
  - philjohn 12y ago
    Here you go: https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/487180484838174722 https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/487180484838174722 It was a response to David Cameron's tweet.
- JamesMcMinn 12y ago
  Paedophiles and terrorists, apparently. From the BBC's coverage of the announcement yesterday: "PM asks if we want paedophiles and extremists to communicate without it being possible to intercept communications".
- switch007 12y ago
  Online abuse of children (Yvette Cooper) Criminals and terrorists (Sir Richard Ottaway) Pedophiles; radicals; criminals; terrorists; industrial, military and state criminal exploitation of communications networks, espionage organised criminal gangs; the threat from all sorts of criminals whose work is made easier by cyber-technology. (Theresa May) [1] Basically, everything, because of how broad the act is. [1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140710/debtext/140710-0001.htm#14071054000003 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/c...
  - madaxe_again 12y ago
    Surely the straightforward way to eliminate the child abusers, terrorists, and criminals would be to just arrest the entirety of lords and commons?
michaelt 12y ago
Look forward to the argument "this bill just lets the security services keep doing what they're already doing" when this bill has to be renewed after the sunset date.
antr 12y ago
Looks like status quo as this is the response I got from Sky regarding data retention a couple of week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7970165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7970165
- pjc50 12y ago
  It's not, really. The question as to whether something is legal if the EU says it isn't but the UK says it is is not entirely clear even given Factortame. The law itself contains a signifigant expansion of the powers, in particular imposing legal obligations on non-UK persons and also allowing the Secretary of State to write new regulations and statutory instruments. http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/ http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-d...
  - antr 12y ago
    Many thanks for the explanation. Now I understand the concern.
DanBC 12y ago
As I understand it this law (passed or not) makes no difference to GCHQ who are probably collecting as much of this data as they can; and have exemptions written into existing laws; and etc etc.
- privong 12y ago
  Even if that is the case, it would be bad to allow a law such as this to legitimize such data collecting activity.
- easytiger 12y ago
  Yes but GCHQ aren't going to compromise their data set by using to convict 13 years of music piracy
- omh 12y ago
  Yes, this is separate from whatever GCHQ are doing. GCHQ are (I assume) intercepting data out in the wild wherever they can then storing and analysing that themselves. This is apparently covered under other laws, but certainly isn't affected by this. This law, and the one it's replacing, is about obligations on phone companies and ISPs to retain traffic data themselves. This data can then be used by the police and other agencies when they need it. I wouldn't be surprised if GCHQ had access to this but I doubt that it makes a big difference to their capabilities. I'd expect that they can do far more than this regardless.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Parallel construction, I suppose: use the GCHQ records to select a target, then pull the ISP's copy of the data into court.
    - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
      Mmm... no, I don't actually think GCHQ trust the Plods anywhere near that much (i.e. they are not cleared for relevant SCI; usually not even TS, just C or S!). If they do (and they might, these are just my impressions) I'd be quite surprised. The NSA definitely work closely, frequently and directly with the FBI, DEA, CIA, and many other US Government agencies, especially since 9/11 and all that "fusion center" business. We know that. They're quite proud about it. But the old boys from Cheltenham are very conservative indeed, and though they work frequently with The Security Service (MI5) and the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), I think they rely on the intelligence agencies to do liaison with any law enforcement (notably MI5 with certain branches of the Metropolitan Police) and that only happens in pretty rare cases, nearly all of which are espionage-related or terrorism cases that I'm aware of (drugs are considered a Police problem, not an MI5 problem - we have no DEA analogue). It's nowhere near as connected as you have over there, and that's for cultural/service-rivalry reasons as well as operational (budgetary? They're not as flush with cash as NSA are) and trust ones. The Police and their powers under RIPA are more often on their own with that kind of thing. That's why the Government is pushing the whole emergency data retention thing - those powers are more frequently used by law enforcement (but RIPA doesn't really affect GCHQ at all). I don't think the new "National Crime Agency" has actually changed that setup much, if at all; GCHQ seem to hold them in low regard. Old boys versus new pups, and all that.
dan_bk 12y ago
Giving a speech to the House of Commons today, the UK Home Secretary, Theresa May, made it clear that, in her view, the powers in the new legislation are still inadequate — saying they “will not tackle the wider problem of declining communications data capability” – bringing back the specter of a more wide-ranging ‘Snoopers’ Charter’ being introduced by a future Tory government. In other words: They're just warming up.
easytiger 12y ago
Which Billis this? Is this the Communications Data Bill that has been around for a while? I can't see anything in hansard remotely related to this.
- MatthewWilkes 12y ago
  Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
- mnem 12y ago
  There's a draft uploaded at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328939/draft-drip-bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
  - easytiger 12y ago
    Thanks, got it.
- asuffield 12y ago
  It is completely different to the CDB; this is a rewrite of a law that already existed and which was successfully challenged in the ECJ. The rewrite is supposed to fix the issues raised by the ECJ; whether it actually does is unclear, but it is likely to place the law beyond the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
I read that the EU ruled a similar EU wide law unlawful recently. Can they not do the same here? I always thought that although the UK can make it's own laws it couldn't override EU rulings.
- MatthewWilkes 12y ago
  That's why this law is being brought in. It's not an overnight thing to invalidate a law, if they change it slightly they get another period of doing evil until they're ordered to stop again.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Thanks for clarifying.
  - omh 12y ago
    It may be slightly more clever than that. David Allen Green suggests[1] that this moves the legislation so that it is directly implemented by UK law rather than as a result of an EU law. This means that the current court ruling wouldn't apply and that it would be almost impossible to mount a similar court challenge in future. [1] Non-reg link: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&url=http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/ http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&url=http://blogs...
    - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
      He's not to my reading saying it would be 'almost impossible' to mount a similar challenge in the future. The "DRIP Bill" (thanks, that's a great term) is fairly obviously taking the piss with the ECJ ruling, considering it contains a big slice of the "Snoopers' Charter" and is going in exactly the wrong direction. It would, however, require a new legal challenge to the Supreme Court or the ECJ/ECHR to fight this, and they probably think that will take somewhat longer than 2 years, 2 years during which they get more retention, after which they'll probably either renew it or change it a bit again, probably for the worse because some of the Tories like Theresa May and Cameron don't even think this went far enough (wtf?!), and reset the clock again... maybe I'm being cynical, but I think my cynicism is well-earned here. Gah.
sparkie 12y ago
> Which will only last until 2016. If there's anything I've learned in life, it's that there's nothing more permanent than temporary laws.
- junto 12y ago
  Exactly. UK Anti terrorism legislation has almost always been "emergency" that was extended and solidified. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/22/explainer-terrorism-legislation http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009...
MatthewWilkes 12y ago
For me, this is the worst bit: 4 Extra-territoriality in Part 1 of RIPA (1) Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (communications) is amended as follows. (2) In section 11 (implementation of interception warrants), after subsection (2) insert – - (2A) A copy of a warrant may be served under subsection (2) on a person outside the United Kingdom (and may relate to conduct outside the United Kingdom). (3) In subsection (4) of that section, after "that person" insert "(whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom)". (5) In subsection (8) of that section, after "enforceable" insert "(including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom)". (6) In section 12 (maintenance of interception capability), after subsection (3) insert – - (3A) An obligation may be imposed in accordance with an order under this section on, and a notice under subsection (2) given to, persons outside the United Kingdom (and may be so imposed or given in relation to conduct outside the United Kingdom). I did some snipping to get rid of admin stuff, but those terms extend the authority of the UK home secretary to give him jurisdiction on ordering wiretapping outside of the UK. Section 11 of RIPA is about wiretaps, section 12 is about ensuring the ability to have wiretaps. If this passes, the following will be law in the UK: (4) Where a copy of an interception warrant has been served by or on behalf of the person to whom it is addressed on— (a) a person who provides a postal service, (b) a person who provides a public telecommunications service, or (c) a person not falling within paragraph (b) who has control of the whole or any part of a telecommunication system located wholly or partly in the United Kingdom,it shall (subject to subsection (5)) be the duty of that person (whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom) to take all such steps for giving effect to the warrant as are notified to him by or on behalf of the person to whom the warrant is addressed. (8) A person’s duty under subsection (4) to take steps for giving effect to a warrant shall be enforceable (including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom) by civil proceedings by the Secretary of State for an injunction, or for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or for any other appropriate relief. To put it plainly, this act, if it passes, will allow the UK to seek civil redress against companies that have no link to the United Kingdom if they refuse to spy on their users, so long as they can argue that some part of the communications system is in the UK. To me, that reads like it will be valid if there are users in the UK.
ajb 12y ago
This bill[1] is of direct interest to non-UK people, because it 'clarifies' that the requests to intercept or for communications metadata are enforceable on companies outside the UK, and on ""internet based services, such as webmail" [2, paras 27,71]. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer) [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328939/draft-drip-bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328940/draft-drip-notes.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
bellerocky 12y ago
I'm always a fan of "emergency powers" that infringe on the public's rights because they are "necessary" for "public safety". I'm sure the expiration time and a powerless oversight board will make all the difference, especially if you put a bunch of people on it that totally agree that the government have access to all things. No way this could ever lead to abuse. This is how the star power game is played[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarPower_(game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarPower_(game)
omh 12y ago
If you're in the UK then you should contact your MP about this to let them know what you think. And you need to do it now - the vote is on Monday. Perhaps if they realise what people think about this they might reconsider. Contacting your MP is easy using https://www.writetothem.com/ https://www.writetothem.com/ or the dedicated anti-DRIP page at ORG https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-the-data-retention-stitch-up https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-...
- tdobson 12y ago
  also https://dataretentionandinvestigatorypowersbill.uk/ https://dataretentionandinvestigatorypowersbill.uk/ is worth a look at
- jamescun 12y ago
  By all means write to your MP, call me a pessimist but I doubt it will do much good. This government has shown no interest in listening to what the public think. We as a nation are expending all peaceful means of discourse (letters, petitions, protests, marches) on a range of topics like the sell-off of the NHS, real-terms pay cuts for public sector workers, cuts to vital services and critical welfare; and the result is no change. Even in the face of incontrovertible evidence and testimony from legions of industry experts (from all political leanings) does not sway whatever agenda the current government have. Personally I have written to my MP several times in several different constituencies only to receive back the same cookie cutter party line on the subject and addresses none of the valid concerns I raise, I hear this same from others about their MPs.
  - asuffield 12y ago
    It depends a lot on who your MP is. If your MP is in a safe seat (a little under two thirds of them), they have no reason to do any more than post back the party response. If your MP is a government minister, they cannot do any more than this on any national issue which is outside their personal portfolio. If you live in a contested constituency and your MP is not a minister, you are likely to receive a more substantive response. However you should not expect them to have access to a subject-matter expert; an MP is one person with a staff of around four or five office workers.
tonylemesmer 12y ago
Even during an interview on BBC Radio 4 on Wednesday evening a government minister slipped in that the government need to keep an eye on catching paedophiles and serious organised crime. So this clearly isn't just for an immediate terrorist threat, they're just going through all the legislation that's been going a bit stale and rushing it through whilst the opinion polls don't really matter and all under false pretences or half truths.
- revelation 12y ago
  It's not even for paedophiles or serious organised crime either. As with all other new police capabilities, 90% of this will be used for the drug war and the remainder is split between a bunch of lowlevel crimes such as theft or harassment . There is data from Austrias data retention laws here: http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/AB/AB_01179/imfname_353625.pdf http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/AB/AB_01179/imfname_... Summing up, in 2013, data was used for investigations concercing the following offenses: - theft (35%) - drugs (18%) - robbery (16%) - stalking (14%) - fraud (12%) - threats (5%)
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    So, is your contention that because data was only used to catch regular criminals - drug dealers, robbers, stalkers, fraudsters and the like - that we should find that a bad thing. It's just prima facie it sounds quite good to me that criminals who might not have otherwise been convicted or discovered in their actions can now be so. All at the cost of the police knowing what my ISP [and GCHQ] knows about me already.
    - revelation 12y ago
      I really don't care to have this conversation right now. It's been discussed over and over, and the feigned ignorance is insulting. The point here is that if you are going to use this to catch petty criminals, you have to market it as such to the public. Instead, we have politicians conjuring up the image of imminent terrorist attacks and national security. It is a simple lie.
coldcode 12y ago
The country where 1984 was written seems determined to make it factual history. Once a government decides it's fine and dandy to spy on its own (and others) it's unlikely to ever go backwards.
nateabele 12y ago
> "[E]mergency legislation is necessary to keep the country safe" After the number of times US and UK spy agencies have been caught red-handed, do people really still buy this? Because that'd be the saddest part of all.
- pjc50 12y ago
  People still buy the Daily Mail, that's what matters. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html : at time of writing this comment, I can't find any mention of this story on the front page at all. Also, to be fair, if you're an average white guy who doesn't get involved in politics, you're not likely to have surveillance used against you. It's a police state in potential, a "fleet in being" that has not put to sea.
  - switch007 12y ago
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2687112/Emergency-spy-laws-monitor-calls-web-use-needed-safe-Cameron-claims.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2687112/Emergency-sp... EDIT: ah, no, not on the front page.. The comments are better than I expected, to be honest.

112 points by RobAley 12y ago

> Prime Minister David Cameron and his Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will tell a special cabinet meeting on Thursday that emergency legislation is necessary to keep the country safe. Safe from what, exactly?

pgeorgi 12y ago
From PM and deputy PM throwing a tantrum, of course.
madaxe_again 12y ago
From a mass civil uprising against the increasingly fascistic tack taken by Our Glorious Leaders.
DanBC 12y ago
"paedophile MPs?" (From Franke Boyle, but I can't find the tweet at the moment.) > Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle Jul 10 > Oddly, a government that lost 114 files on child abuse thinks it's important to keep a note of every time you post a funny cat video online > Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle Jul 10 > About time we had a new electronic surveillance law to uncover exactly no terrorists and 158 million texts about fucking
- JonnieCache 12y ago
  How do these people not understand that when they say "we lost the files" the public hears "we definitely did it, and we're probably still doing it." The tory party is now surely the baby-raping party in the minds of everyone who read about that investigation and the "lost" files. TBF not much change there.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - northernmonkey 12y ago
    The truth of course it that lots of MPs do understand how people interpret this kind of thing. Truth is, most MPs are intelligent, reasonable people. Sadly they are often judged for the actions of the few reprehensible MPs that more often than not make it to the front benches.
- pling 12y ago
  You've got to love Frankie Boyle for saying it how it is. I suspect that the timing of this isn't coincidental as well on the basis that: 1. It was just after the allegations of these files being lost was made (5th July) 2. Everyone's going on holiday soon (22nd July) so apathy is at a high. Not impressed!
- philjohn 12y ago
  Here you go: https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/487180484838174722 https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/487180484838174722 It was a response to David Cameron's tweet.
JamesMcMinn 12y ago
Paedophiles and terrorists, apparently. From the BBC's coverage of the announcement yesterday: "PM asks if we want paedophiles and extremists to communicate without it being possible to intercept communications".
switch007 12y ago
Online abuse of children (Yvette Cooper) Criminals and terrorists (Sir Richard Ottaway) Pedophiles; radicals; criminals; terrorists; industrial, military and state criminal exploitation of communications networks, espionage organised criminal gangs; the threat from all sorts of criminals whose work is made easier by cyber-technology. (Theresa May) [1] Basically, everything, because of how broad the act is. [1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140710/debtext/140710-0001.htm#14071054000003 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/c...
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  Surely the straightforward way to eliminate the child abusers, terrorists, and criminals would be to just arrest the entirety of lords and commons?

michaelt 12y ago

Look forward to the argument "this bill just lets the security services keep doing what they're already doing" when this bill has to be renewed after the sunset date.

antr 12y ago

Looks like status quo as this is the response I got from Sky regarding data retention a couple of week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7970165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7970165

pjc50 12y ago
It's not, really. The question as to whether something is legal if the EU says it isn't but the UK says it is is not entirely clear even given Factortame. The law itself contains a signifigant expansion of the powers, in particular imposing legal obligations on non-UK persons and also allowing the Secretary of State to write new regulations and statutory instruments. http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/ http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-d...
- antr 12y ago
  Many thanks for the explanation. Now I understand the concern.

DanBC 12y ago

As I understand it this law (passed or not) makes no difference to GCHQ who are probably collecting as much of this data as they can; and have exemptions written into existing laws; and etc etc.

privong 12y ago
Even if that is the case, it would be bad to allow a law such as this to legitimize such data collecting activity.
easytiger 12y ago
Yes but GCHQ aren't going to compromise their data set by using to convict 13 years of music piracy
omh 12y ago
Yes, this is separate from whatever GCHQ are doing. GCHQ are (I assume) intercepting data out in the wild wherever they can then storing and analysing that themselves. This is apparently covered under other laws, but certainly isn't affected by this. This law, and the one it's replacing, is about obligations on phone companies and ISPs to retain traffic data themselves. This data can then be used by the police and other agencies when they need it. I wouldn't be surprised if GCHQ had access to this but I doubt that it makes a big difference to their capabilities. I'd expect that they can do far more than this regardless.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Parallel construction, I suppose: use the GCHQ records to select a target, then pull the ISP's copy of the data into court.
  - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
    Mmm... no, I don't actually think GCHQ trust the Plods anywhere near that much (i.e. they are not cleared for relevant SCI; usually not even TS, just C or S!). If they do (and they might, these are just my impressions) I'd be quite surprised. The NSA definitely work closely, frequently and directly with the FBI, DEA, CIA, and many other US Government agencies, especially since 9/11 and all that "fusion center" business. We know that. They're quite proud about it. But the old boys from Cheltenham are very conservative indeed, and though they work frequently with The Security Service (MI5) and the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), I think they rely on the intelligence agencies to do liaison with any law enforcement (notably MI5 with certain branches of the Metropolitan Police) and that only happens in pretty rare cases, nearly all of which are espionage-related or terrorism cases that I'm aware of (drugs are considered a Police problem, not an MI5 problem - we have no DEA analogue). It's nowhere near as connected as you have over there, and that's for cultural/service-rivalry reasons as well as operational (budgetary? They're not as flush with cash as NSA are) and trust ones. The Police and their powers under RIPA are more often on their own with that kind of thing. That's why the Government is pushing the whole emergency data retention thing - those powers are more frequently used by law enforcement (but RIPA doesn't really affect GCHQ at all). I don't think the new "National Crime Agency" has actually changed that setup much, if at all; GCHQ seem to hold them in low regard. Old boys versus new pups, and all that.

dan_bk 12y ago

Giving a speech to the House of Commons today, the UK Home Secretary, Theresa May, made it clear that, in her view, the powers in the new legislation are still inadequate — saying they “will not tackle the wider problem of declining communications data capability” – bringing back the specter of a more wide-ranging ‘Snoopers’ Charter’ being introduced by a future Tory government. In other words: They're just warming up.

easytiger 12y ago

Which Billis this? Is this the Communications Data Bill that has been around for a while? I can't see anything in hansard remotely related to this.

MatthewWilkes 12y ago
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
mnem 12y ago
There's a draft uploaded at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328939/draft-drip-bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
- easytiger 12y ago
  Thanks, got it.
asuffield 12y ago
It is completely different to the CDB; this is a rewrite of a law that already existed and which was successfully challenged in the ECJ. The rewrite is supposed to fix the issues raised by the ECJ; whether it actually does is unclear, but it is likely to place the law beyond the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

I read that the EU ruled a similar EU wide law unlawful recently. Can they not do the same here? I always thought that although the UK can make it's own laws it couldn't override EU rulings.

MatthewWilkes 12y ago
That's why this law is being brought in. It's not an overnight thing to invalidate a law, if they change it slightly they get another period of doing evil until they're ordered to stop again.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Thanks for clarifying.
- omh 12y ago
  It may be slightly more clever than that. David Allen Green suggests[1] that this moves the legislation so that it is directly implemented by UK law rather than as a result of an EU law. This means that the current court ruling wouldn't apply and that it would be almost impossible to mount a similar court challenge in future. [1] Non-reg link: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&url=http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/ http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&url=http://blogs...
  - AlyssaRowan 12y ago
    He's not to my reading saying it would be 'almost impossible' to mount a similar challenge in the future. The "DRIP Bill" (thanks, that's a great term) is fairly obviously taking the piss with the ECJ ruling, considering it contains a big slice of the "Snoopers' Charter" and is going in exactly the wrong direction. It would, however, require a new legal challenge to the Supreme Court or the ECJ/ECHR to fight this, and they probably think that will take somewhat longer than 2 years, 2 years during which they get more retention, after which they'll probably either renew it or change it a bit again, probably for the worse because some of the Tories like Theresa May and Cameron don't even think this went far enough (wtf?!), and reset the clock again... maybe I'm being cynical, but I think my cynicism is well-earned here. Gah.

sparkie 12y ago

> Which will only last until 2016. If there's anything I've learned in life, it's that there's nothing more permanent than temporary laws.

junto 12y ago
Exactly. UK Anti terrorism legislation has almost always been "emergency" that was extended and solidified. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/22/explainer-terrorism-legislation http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009...

MatthewWilkes 12y ago

For me, this is the worst bit: 4 Extra-territoriality in Part 1 of RIPA (1) Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (communications) is amended as follows. (2) In section 11 (implementation of interception warrants), after subsection (2) insert – - (2A) A copy of a warrant may be served under subsection (2) on a person outside the United Kingdom (and may relate to conduct outside the United Kingdom). (3) In subsection (4) of that section, after "that person" insert "(whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom)". (5) In subsection (8) of that section, after "enforceable" insert "(including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom)". (6) In section 12 (maintenance of interception capability), after subsection (3) insert – - (3A) An obligation may be imposed in accordance with an order under this section on, and a notice under subsection (2) given to, persons outside the United Kingdom (and may be so imposed or given in relation to conduct outside the United Kingdom). I did some snipping to get rid of admin stuff, but those terms extend the authority of the UK home secretary to give him jurisdiction on ordering wiretapping outside of the UK. Section 11 of RIPA is about wiretaps, section 12 is about ensuring the ability to have wiretaps. If this passes, the following will be law in the UK: (4) Where a copy of an interception warrant has been served by or on behalf of the person to whom it is addressed on— (a) a person who provides a postal service, (b) a person who provides a public telecommunications service, or (c) a person not falling within paragraph (b) who has control of the whole or any part of a telecommunication system located wholly or partly in the United Kingdom,it shall (subject to subsection (5)) be the duty of that person (whether or not the person is in the United Kingdom) to take all such steps for giving effect to the warrant as are notified to him by or on behalf of the person to whom the warrant is addressed. (8) A person’s duty under subsection (4) to take steps for giving effect to a warrant shall be enforceable (including in the case of a person outside the United Kingdom) by civil proceedings by the Secretary of State for an injunction, or for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or for any other appropriate relief. To put it plainly, this act, if it passes, will allow the UK to seek civil redress against companies that have no link to the United Kingdom if they refuse to spy on their users, so long as they can argue that some part of the communications system is in the UK. To me, that reads like it will be valid if there are users in the UK.

ajb 12y ago

This bill[1] is of direct interest to non-UK people, because it 'clarifies' that the requests to intercept or for communications metadata are enforceable on companies outside the UK, and on ""internet based services, such as webmail" [2, paras 27,71]. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer) [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328939/draft-drip-bill.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328940/draft-drip-notes.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

bellerocky 12y ago

I'm always a fan of "emergency powers" that infringe on the public's rights because they are "necessary" for "public safety". I'm sure the expiration time and a powerless oversight board will make all the difference, especially if you put a bunch of people on it that totally agree that the government have access to all things. No way this could ever lead to abuse. This is how the star power game is played[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarPower_(game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarPower_(game)

omh 12y ago

If you're in the UK then you should contact your MP about this to let them know what you think. And you need to do it now - the vote is on Monday. Perhaps if they realise what people think about this they might reconsider. Contacting your MP is easy using https://www.writetothem.com/ https://www.writetothem.com/ or the dedicated anti-DRIP page at ORG https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-the-data-retention-stitch-up https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-...

tdobson 12y ago
also https://dataretentionandinvestigatorypowersbill.uk/ https://dataretentionandinvestigatorypowersbill.uk/ is worth a look at
jamescun 12y ago
By all means write to your MP, call me a pessimist but I doubt it will do much good. This government has shown no interest in listening to what the public think. We as a nation are expending all peaceful means of discourse (letters, petitions, protests, marches) on a range of topics like the sell-off of the NHS, real-terms pay cuts for public sector workers, cuts to vital services and critical welfare; and the result is no change. Even in the face of incontrovertible evidence and testimony from legions of industry experts (from all political leanings) does not sway whatever agenda the current government have. Personally I have written to my MP several times in several different constituencies only to receive back the same cookie cutter party line on the subject and addresses none of the valid concerns I raise, I hear this same from others about their MPs.
- asuffield 12y ago
  It depends a lot on who your MP is. If your MP is in a safe seat (a little under two thirds of them), they have no reason to do any more than post back the party response. If your MP is a government minister, they cannot do any more than this on any national issue which is outside their personal portfolio. If you live in a contested constituency and your MP is not a minister, you are likely to receive a more substantive response. However you should not expect them to have access to a subject-matter expert; an MP is one person with a staff of around four or five office workers.

tonylemesmer 12y ago

Even during an interview on BBC Radio 4 on Wednesday evening a government minister slipped in that the government need to keep an eye on catching paedophiles and serious organised crime. So this clearly isn't just for an immediate terrorist threat, they're just going through all the legislation that's been going a bit stale and rushing it through whilst the opinion polls don't really matter and all under false pretences or half truths.

revelation 12y ago
It's not even for paedophiles or serious organised crime either. As with all other new police capabilities, 90% of this will be used for the drug war and the remainder is split between a bunch of lowlevel crimes such as theft or harassment . There is data from Austrias data retention laws here: http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/AB/AB_01179/imfname_353625.pdf http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXV/AB/AB_01179/imfname_... Summing up, in 2013, data was used for investigations concercing the following offenses: - theft (35%) - drugs (18%) - robbery (16%) - stalking (14%) - fraud (12%) - threats (5%)
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  So, is your contention that because data was only used to catch regular criminals - drug dealers, robbers, stalkers, fraudsters and the like - that we should find that a bad thing. It's just prima facie it sounds quite good to me that criminals who might not have otherwise been convicted or discovered in their actions can now be so. All at the cost of the police knowing what my ISP [and GCHQ] knows about me already.
  - revelation 12y ago
    I really don't care to have this conversation right now. It's been discussed over and over, and the feigned ignorance is insulting. The point here is that if you are going to use this to catch petty criminals, you have to market it as such to the public. Instead, we have politicians conjuring up the image of imminent terrorist attacks and national security. It is a simple lie.

coldcode 12y ago

The country where 1984 was written seems determined to make it factual history. Once a government decides it's fine and dandy to spy on its own (and others) it's unlikely to ever go backwards.

nateabele 12y ago

> "[E]mergency legislation is necessary to keep the country safe" After the number of times US and UK spy agencies have been caught red-handed, do people really still buy this? Because that'd be the saddest part of all.

pjc50 12y ago
People still buy the Daily Mail, that's what matters. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html : at time of writing this comment, I can't find any mention of this story on the front page at all. Also, to be fair, if you're an average white guy who doesn't get involved in politics, you're not likely to have surveillance used against you. It's a police state in potential, a "fleet in being" that has not put to sea.
- switch007 12y ago
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2687112/Emergency-spy-laws-monitor-calls-web-use-needed-safe-Cameron-claims.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2687112/Emergency-sp... EDIT: ah, no, not on the front page.. The comments are better than I expected, to be honest.