14 ms·

UK government quietly rewrites hacking laws to give GCHQ immunity

348 points by escapologybb 11y ago

anon1385 11y ago
“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'. This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.” -- David Cameron http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/uk-britain-militants-idUKKBN0NX2OW20150513 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/uk-britain-militant...
- Tenoke 11y ago
  So, do people really think they are contributing by putting this (somewhat out of context) quote everywhere the UK government is mentioned during the last week? I am honestly curious.
  - smitherfield 11y ago
    Yeah, Cameron was talking about how they have (in the UK) groups who openly* support ISIS and terrorism, and who are known to have contact with terrorists, but the UK gov't heretofore can't do anything about because they can't prove they've broken any laws. *As in, will give interviews to the media.
    - EliRivers 11y ago
      Isn't that the point of having laws? If the UK government thinks people shouldn't be able to openly support ISIS and terrorism, then make it illegal.
      - Tenoke 11y ago
        That's pretty much exactly what they are doing from what I understood. My charitable read of the quote was that it is, in fact, about that change.
        anon1385 11y ago
        It's far broader than that: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/13/theresa-may-s-plans-are-a-threat-to-british-values http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/13/theresa-may-s-pla... >The details are still not clear and won't get much clearer until the Queen's Speech – or probably afterwards. But we do know three things: 1) that the definition of an extremist is being expanded 2) that the process for how someone is officially designated as an extremist is shrouded in mystery, and 3) that the list of restrictions which applies to them once they have been designated an extremist is now extremely broad and intrusive. >What is an extremist? >Towards the end of the last parliament, Theresa May started expanding the definition of extremist to include 'non-violent extremism'. Those who spread or incite hatred on the basis of gender, race or religion were included, as were those who undertook harmful activities "for the purpose of overthrowing democracy". Groups which sought to "undermine democracy" or "use hate speech in public places" were also included. >This morning the Home Office sent me this statement, which is similar but different. "The government defines extremism as 'the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs'. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as extremist.” >How are we designated extremists? >Extremists will find themselves on the national extremism database. This database is shrouded in secrecy. We know it is managed by the Met police, and there is no judicial oversight over who is put on there. We know the security agencies are very secretive about who is on it and what is held about them. There was a long battle between Big Brother Watch, the Met and the Information Commissioner's Office over simply releasing details about how many people were on the database and what information about them was held. >What we do know is that it includes people who no rational person would consider an extremist. One Green councillor who organised a public meeting about the transportation of animals from Calais to Dover is understood to be on it. Jenny Jones, the green peer, is understood to be on it. >What happens when you’re considered an extremist? >The proposals going into the Queen's Speech next month will be very broad. Police will be able to apply to the high court to limit the "harmful activities" of extremists. These "harmful activities" include anything with a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress, or creating a "threat to the functioning of democracy". >In response, the high court can grant a ban on broadcasting or a requirement for the so-called extremist to submit all publications for the web, social media or print to the police in advance for authorisation.
      - throwawayaway 11y ago
        typically what happens then is that the organisation makes a political wing to act as a presentable face to the terrorist wing.
        rorykoehler 11y ago
        Sinn Féin...
      - rorykoehler 11y ago
        Unfortunately that solves nothing. Banning something has never done anything but push it underground. It's the equivalent of taking pain killers to cure cancer. The biggest problem we face in Western society is the proliferation of extremist conservative agendas in the halls of power. The only way to solve all the issues we face with extremism whether it be in the guise of Western conservatism, Islamism, Neo-Liberalism or anything other toxic ideology is to focus on tolerance and education. Western foreign policy (colonialism) over the past centuries has created the situation we find ourselves in. When you create the conditions for cancer to prosper then you have to deal with the consequences. Instead of altering our policies we double up on them and then wonder why people hate us. We create conditions where people have nothing to lose (for example Iraq/Syria) and their only options are to fall back into impulsive/conformist organizational structures because that gives them some sort of security and purpose. Too many people have been ostracized by the contemporary world and we do nothing to help them, instead our political policy is to kick them while they are down. In my mind what David Cameron represents is as toxic as what ISIS represent however since it affects me much more in my daily life I would say it is a far greater danger to my way of life than ISIS will ever be.
        vixen99 11y ago
        Can you give an example of the 'far greater danger' to you in your daily life?
        rorykoehler 11y ago
        The Great Recession....
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        EliRivers 11y ago
        Banning something has never done anything but push it underground. True, but that's not always a bad thing. Some things that are pushed underground happen a lot less. Murder, for example, is banned. Instances of it are (often) vigorously investigated, and the perpetrators dealt with (to varying degrees of effectiveness). I suspect that if murder was not banned, it would happen a lot more.
    - anon1385 11y ago
      >can't do anything about because they can't prove they've broken any laws. Yes, that's how the rule of law works.
      - themartorana 11y ago
        It seems so simple, yet it is the antithesis of all secret government policies in the western world for a while.
      - LLWM 11y ago
        Yes, that's why he's challenging how the rule of law works. Otherwise people wouldn't be so obsessed with this quote. Surely when it comes to a topic like this, you could come up with some reasons why a change to the status quo is bad other than "that's not how we do it now"?
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      "Just look at what these loonies are doing! We can't have people openly supporting the slaughter of innocent people and baby seals. They are undermining the values we hold dear, and corrupting the youth with their hateful message! Obviously, we need to place certain limits on free speech" What? Of course you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't misuse it!
      - smitherfield 11y ago
        There is no right to free speech in the UK. You can go to prison for a racist tweet, for example, which is a whole lot less reasonable than putting a great deal of scrutiny on people who go on the TV news and talk about how they want to become terrorists (e.g. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis-supporter_news http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis... http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-walsh-supporters-of-terror.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-wal... ). Which is absolutely ridiculous and would never be tolerated in the US, the only country in which there's anything approaching an absolute right to free speech.
        Coding_Cat 11y ago
        Still, the quote from David Cameron almost suggest an extra-legal approach, and definitely insinuates increased spying on it's own citizens. The whole "terrorists propaganda" issue could be dealt with by introducing new laws, as things should go in a rule-of-law, perhaps one which classifies certain groups as hate-groups and bans the promotion of their ideals, I believe similar laws exist in many places in Europe.
        arethuza 11y ago
        You are correct - but I also vividly remember a message playing as I went through security in a US airport a couple of years ago saying that things like inappropriate jokes etc. could result in arrest.
        semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    - Zenst 11y ago
      Indeed and in this case the laws get flaugnted, the laws that protect free speech and human rights being abused. Interestingly in the Boston area churches etc openly collected money for the IRA upto 9/11 and then perspective of what there money was supporting was clear. But with ISIS, I do not think anybody can be in doubt about what any money for them is supporting. Still laws be them TAX laws, have loop-holes and they get abused, not by the common people who they were done to protect but by those without ethics.
  - skrebbel 11y ago
    IMO, yes. Taking it out of context is great because it shows the true horror of that kind of thinking. Nearly all oppression starts with some lovely quote about catching the terrorists or protecting the children. You need to take that context away to see the idea the way it really is.
  - mhuffman 11y ago
    Well it is not totally unrelated, and I think it bears repeating, due to shear audaciousness, if nothing else. It would be the equivalent of Obama publicly stating on TV that Americans have been "getting a bit too uppity with the free speech" and "we are about to change all that!"
    - themartorana 11y ago
      This is the funniest and scariest thing I have read today, but it's brilliantly illustrative.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Maybe I am thick, or maybe it's just that I haven't finished my coffee yet. Please tell me what context that I am missing that makes Cameron's quote acceptable.
    - fennecfoxen 11y ago
      The article identifies: "The need to tackle radicalism in Britain has been underlined by the flow of hundreds of Britons to join Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria - most notably Kuwaiti-born Londoner Mohammed Emwazi, who has appeared in videos showing the beheading of Western hostages." [reuters article linked above] So... What Cameron is saying is that... too long have we been passively tolerant of people who are actively seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, just because they haven't broken the law. We need to reject that approach, be more careful and watch out. He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself. Myself, I think that quotes like this are the empty calories of politics, like Hilary's "what difference does it make" (which was about prioritizing embassy safety over discovering the perpetrators of the incident in the ultra short term) or Bush's "is our children learning" (which, if you haven't watched the video for that, was an awkward rendition of "that question is: are children learning?") DISCLAIMER. (UN)DESIRABILITY OF AND ACTUAL IMPLICATIONS OF ANY POLICIES ARE LEFT AS AN EXERCISE TO THE READER.
      - anon1385 11y ago
        Cameron's government is expanding the definition of extremist to include 'non-violent extremists', which is people who disagree with the vague 'British values' or are opposed to the current democratic system. So it is very clearly and explicitly not just about people who support ISIS violence, although of course that is what the government wants people to think.
      - vidarh 11y ago
        And the very situation that has allowed the growth of things like the Islamic State demonstrates the failure of the kind of authoritarian approach that Cameron seems to crave: A less tolerant government has never historically lead to a more tolerant populace other than in the very short term.
  - gaius 11y ago
    somewhat out of context Well consider that Thatcher's "no such thing as society" quote was actually in the context of calling on people to take positive action to look after their neighbours and their community rather than waiting for someone else e.g. society to do it for them. Yet her opponents twisted it to imply the exact opposite.
- s_kilk 11y ago
  Oh how I wish we (Scotland) had decided to part from these lunatics.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    A few more policies like this and a No vote in the EU referendum by the UK and a Yes vote in Scotland and I can see another independence referendum happening before 2020 - which I personally think is too soon, even though I did vote Yes in the last one.
    - s_kilk 11y ago
      I agree. Have you noticed a change in the air since the referendum? It seems to me that people are pretty sour about the outcome, it's the second time in a row that Scotland has voted almost unanimously against the Tories and still ended up with a Tory government. I'm seeing even staunch anti-independence voters start to reconsider their positions.
      - arethuza 11y ago
        My own view was that I was fairly happy with the status quo after the referendum and before the general election - but it turned out that keeping that wasn't an option. The rUK has swung decisively to the right (e.g. UKIP 12%), the Conservatives have a majority on their own without the moderating influence of the Lib Dems - which is fine as we are a democracy but the people of Scotland clearly have wildly different views (SNP 50%, UKIP 1.6%). Then of course there is the prospect of BoJo as PM - which I think would pretty much guarantee a rapid dissolution of the UK.
        s_kilk 11y ago
        Agreed on all counts. For those who don't know what we're talking about: this map of the recent UK election results should illustrate the huge divide between Scotland and England: https://flipchartfairytales.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screen-shot-2015-05-11-at-10-03-33.png https://flipchartfairytales.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/scre... They are two very different cultures.
- rndn 11y ago
  What is the evidence that this is a failed approach?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    (I am strongly against the government's stupid changes; I strongly support the human rights act etc) All the children travelling to Syria? All the money being raised for terrorist organisations - from people who know the money is going to be used for terrorist purposes? The murder of English soldiers on British streets? The plot to kill other soldiers by a british teenager? The recent IRA plot to assassinate Prince Charles and Camilla? The fact that PREVENT is a "toxic brand" and widely distrusted? There is a bunch of stuff happening that causes some concern to UK government.
    - ccvannorman 11y ago
      And the best solution they can come up with is "Let's oppress the SHIT out of everybody, then everything will be .. better!"
      - Zenst 11y ago
        Yet we live in a society that accepts locks on doors and the need for encryption and pin codes for bank cards which equally oppress our time and our trust in others, yet we accept that as a balance in that it protects us from bad people, even if we never know or come across any. Not a perfect solution by far, but this is not a perfect World and until you get a society in which people do not lock doors as no need etc, is when security becomes oppression.
    - rorykoehler 11y ago
      How many children went to Syria? A few thousand at most and that's being generous. Hardly a cause for concern. It's statistically inconsequential beside I can think of a thousand and one ways to prevent this happening in a non-aggressive, inclusive and progressive way. All these policies are going to do is disillusion even more people.
- junto 11y ago
  So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult. George Orwell, 1984
- fixxer 11y ago
  Terrifying language from a civil liberties stance, but not altogether shocking given the existence of radical groups within the UK territory. What scares me about government, both in the US and abroad, is not the polarization of parties, but how quickly the dominant ideologies cycle from left to right. The pendulum swings to fast.
  - lawnchair_larry 11y ago
    When has it ever swung "left"?
    - arethuza 11y ago
      I think you would have to admit that the 1945 general election that removed Churchill from being PM and that went on to introduce the NHS was most definitely a swing to the left.
      - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        Considering that was 70 years ago, that's an unusual definition of "fast". It was also the last peak for the left. The trend since then has an acceleration rightwards. Don't forget the UK came close to removing a democratically elected prime minister in a right-wing coup - not just once, but twice. The last genuinely left-wing prime minister resigned not long after the second alleged plot - and by a divinely-ordained coincidence his replacement was so utterly useless the electorate found themselves voting for the kind of right wing government the plotters had been working towards.
        arethuza 11y ago
        "his replacement was so utterly useless" Do you mean Callaghan - my recent readings of the relevant histories (particularly those by Dominic Sandbrook) paint him in rather a positive light. Callaghan and the other "real" socialists were as appalled by the behavior of the unions then as everyone else.
    - 11y ago
- chestnut-tree 11y ago
  In case anyone hasn't seen this image on Twitter already: "What David Cameron said actually seems perfectly reasonable if you're a comic book supervillain." https://twitter.com/BrigonChomhgail/status/598828273452326912 https://twitter.com/BrigonChomhgail/status/59882827345232691...
  - Zenst 11y ago
    true, but if you add the words TAX infront of the word law then those same words ring a much different perspective. Though not the finest hour in word choice; The old idiomatic antithesis "The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law" is in effect what he probably meant.
bediger4000 11y ago
The article doesn't touch on snooping "privileged" conversations, like attorney/client, which are typically considered legally sacrosanct, but GCHQ is known to have listened to. How are UK attornies (forgive me, I don't know the correct term) taking that? How are the judges taking it? Does this "secretly introduced" legislation make that legal as well? At what point does "secretly introduced" legislation become anything other than tyranny? I would think very rapidly, but what do I know?
- rmc 11y ago
  > How are UK attornies (forgive me, I don't know the correct term) UK has solicitors and barristers.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    Scotland has solicitors and advocates - although some solicitors can also appear in the higher courts (Court of Session for civil matters and the High Court for criminal).
    - vidarh 11y ago
      Solicitors can in many cases appear in higher courts in England too these days, after the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
    - rmc 11y ago
      Just after I wrote that, I thought "I'm pretty sure Scotland has advocates, maybe I should update my comment."
    - gsnedders 11y ago
      Solicitors can also appear in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for civil matters (the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction for criminal matters in Scotland and therefore under Scots law).
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    .. With highly silly wigs!
higherpurpose 11y ago
Isn't this what they call a "secret law"? UK citizens should be in the streets over this. Completely unacceptable for any democracy.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Sneaking laws in when no one's looking, without a public discussion is pretty much standard practice in all democracies. It's clear they know the masses would object to those laws, but our representatives pass them anyway. Maybe that tells you something about "the system".
  - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
    I come more and more to the conclusion, that democracy -- at least, how we practice it today -- is not working. At least with this level of commitment of the people, it is just a hide and seek game between politicians and the masses and the masses loose, because they are bored away from the political game. The big winners are the big corporations world-wide, because they know how to play the game or at least how to pay the people who know.
    - glesica 11y ago
      > The big winners are the big corporations world-wide, because they know how to play the game or at least how to pay the people who know. It even goes beyond that. The corporations use policies that benefit them to enrich themselves. Some of that enrichment can then be paid out to the politician. What do ordinary citizens do with policies that benefit them? For the most part, they just live their lives in peace. Even when those policies make the people wealthier, it is much harder for the politician to get paid because the new wealth is so disbursed. Really, it's just the market interacting with the politics. I have come to believe that, far from being natural allies (as is commonly held), democracy and market economics are actually quite incompatible for this reason.
      - sillygoose 11y ago
aidanhs 11y ago
I've tried reading the circular [1] (which seems to be a summary of the changes) and can't see anything about immunity. The article also lacks direct quotes or links to relevant sections. Does anyone have more specific source on this detail? Edit: this factsheet [2] on the computer misuse amendments only mentions a clarification that investigation may be performed against UK citizens even if they're located outside the UK at the time of the crime. No mention of immunity or extra powers. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417131/20150325SeriousCrimeActCircular.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415953/Factsheet_-_Computer_Misuse_-_Act.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
- justincormack 11y ago
  It seems, according to [1] that the impact of the changes has been obfuscated. I cant find a specific article with citations though yet. [1] https://www.privacyinternational.org/?q=node/584 https://www.privacyinternational.org/?q=node/584
- makomk 11y ago
  This wasn't mentioned in any of the summaries or fact sheets at the time, which is why no-one noticed it. The first anyone heard about it was when the government's lawyers claimed it granted GHCQ immunity a few days ago. I believe it was also hidden in a deceptively titled section of the bill in question.
- makomk 11y ago
  This wasn't mentioned in any of the summaries or fact sheets at the time, which is why no-one noticed it. The first anyone heard about it was when the government's lawyers claimed it granted GHCQ immunity a few days ago. I believe it was also hidden in a deceptively titled section of the bill in question.
- lambada 11y ago
  Here's the section of legislation in question. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/44/prospective#section-44-2-a http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/44/prospe... Specifically it turns Section 1(1) [Unauthorized access offence definition] above has effect without prejudice to the operation— (a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure; and [...] into Sections 1 to 3A [Unauthorized access / access with a view to further offences / access with intent to impair / making or supplying artefacts to enable the above] have effect without prejudice to the operation— (a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure or of any other enactment by virtue of which the conduct in question is authorised or required ; and [...] The governments position is that this change (I believe this is the right one anyway) gives ordinary rank-and-file GCHQ officers immunity from hacking offences because their conduct will be 'authorized' (by the government) and 'required' (to protect us from the Bad Guys). Previously what was permissible under the Act could be construed to be tighter than what GCHQ were doing - were they only inspecting searching and seizing? Certainly before the Act didn't give them explicit immunity from the later offences such as intent to impair the system. Side note 1: Enactment is defined in a legal sense, to mean pretty much any legislation. I'm unusure as to whther the definition it provides allows for e.g. Statutory Instruments (which rarely have any debate in Parliament) to also be covered under the definition. Side note 2: It also makes the same changes to Scotland, which for legal reasons, tends to get called out in separate subsections with minor variation on the wording if the Act applies at all. Obviously, IANAL.
PythonicAlpha 11y ago
Similar thing here in Germany: Government brought up the so called "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" (data preservation law) again, only to prevent terrorist attacks. Similar laws where cancelled by our "Bundesverfassungsgericht" (German constitutional court) and also at the EuGH (EU constitutional court). But still they brought it up again, because "the terrorist danger is so high" ... and of course they said, that the data will only (we promise!) be used in these cases. Now, short time before the law shall be passed (it should be rushed threw the parliament, of course!), they added some additions to the law, that the data can be also used at any crimes committed in the internet. That is exactly, what was criticized by our constitutional courts before. The law makers try to install such laws again and again. They are not interested, whether it is constitutional or not. When they fail, they wait for the next terror activity and bring up the same bullshit again. That is the reason, why I come to believe, that our democratic systems are bound to fail (again). With so few people caring about our constitutional rights, we will loose them. The lack of care for the constitution allowed it, that the NSDAP "legally" changed a democracy to a dictatorship once before. It can happen again -- in any country.
freddealmeida 11y ago
It must be clear, at least to those who understand, that no democracy can exist with two laws to govern the same act. One for the people and one for those in power. It comes as a sad conclusion that the UK is in actuality truly an oligarchy. It is not only time to see how long it takes the population to realize how horrible that is.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kropotkinlives 11y ago
  You're right. However don't expect any sympathy from those of us who do understand and have fought against it where possible any more. The citizens of the UK have hanged themselves over and over again simply due to idiocy, media induced hatred, class war and nationalism. We deserve this fate. If you want to make a difference now, it's best to do it from the inside as the political winds cannot be stopped. Sabotage is the only answer.
  - aagha 11y ago
    What are you calling for w/ "sabotage"? Non-violent protests? Civil disobedience? More?
    - kropotkinlives 11y ago
      Neither. Just get a job at GCHQ and proudly do a bad job.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >UK is in actuality truly an oligarchy // As a monarchy with a highly defined class structure perhaps the UK has realised already?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
coldcode 11y ago
Yet again the meme continues: George Orwell did not write 1984 as a design document.
DigitalSea 11y ago
If only George Orwell could see us now.

348 points by escapologybb 11y ago

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'. This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.” -- David Cameron http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/uk-britain-militants-idUKKBN0NX2OW20150513 http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/uk-britain-militant...

Tenoke 11y ago
So, do people really think they are contributing by putting this (somewhat out of context) quote everywhere the UK government is mentioned during the last week? I am honestly curious.
- smitherfield 11y ago
  Yeah, Cameron was talking about how they have (in the UK) groups who openly* support ISIS and terrorism, and who are known to have contact with terrorists, but the UK gov't heretofore can't do anything about because they can't prove they've broken any laws. *As in, will give interviews to the media.
  - EliRivers 11y ago
    Isn't that the point of having laws? If the UK government thinks people shouldn't be able to openly support ISIS and terrorism, then make it illegal.
    - Tenoke 11y ago
      That's pretty much exactly what they are doing from what I understood. My charitable read of the quote was that it is, in fact, about that change.
      - anon1385 11y ago
        It's far broader than that: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/13/theresa-may-s-plans-are-a-threat-to-british-values http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/13/theresa-may-s-pla... >The details are still not clear and won't get much clearer until the Queen's Speech – or probably afterwards. But we do know three things: 1) that the definition of an extremist is being expanded 2) that the process for how someone is officially designated as an extremist is shrouded in mystery, and 3) that the list of restrictions which applies to them once they have been designated an extremist is now extremely broad and intrusive. >What is an extremist? >Towards the end of the last parliament, Theresa May started expanding the definition of extremist to include 'non-violent extremism'. Those who spread or incite hatred on the basis of gender, race or religion were included, as were those who undertook harmful activities "for the purpose of overthrowing democracy". Groups which sought to "undermine democracy" or "use hate speech in public places" were also included. >This morning the Home Office sent me this statement, which is similar but different. "The government defines extremism as 'the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs'. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as extremist.” >How are we designated extremists? >Extremists will find themselves on the national extremism database. This database is shrouded in secrecy. We know it is managed by the Met police, and there is no judicial oversight over who is put on there. We know the security agencies are very secretive about who is on it and what is held about them. There was a long battle between Big Brother Watch, the Met and the Information Commissioner's Office over simply releasing details about how many people were on the database and what information about them was held. >What we do know is that it includes people who no rational person would consider an extremist. One Green councillor who organised a public meeting about the transportation of animals from Calais to Dover is understood to be on it. Jenny Jones, the green peer, is understood to be on it. >What happens when you’re considered an extremist? >The proposals going into the Queen's Speech next month will be very broad. Police will be able to apply to the high court to limit the "harmful activities" of extremists. These "harmful activities" include anything with a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress, or creating a "threat to the functioning of democracy". >In response, the high court can grant a ban on broadcasting or a requirement for the so-called extremist to submit all publications for the web, social media or print to the police in advance for authorisation.
    - throwawayaway 11y ago
      typically what happens then is that the organisation makes a political wing to act as a presentable face to the terrorist wing.
      - rorykoehler 11y ago
        Sinn Féin...
    - rorykoehler 11y ago
      Unfortunately that solves nothing. Banning something has never done anything but push it underground. It's the equivalent of taking pain killers to cure cancer. The biggest problem we face in Western society is the proliferation of extremist conservative agendas in the halls of power. The only way to solve all the issues we face with extremism whether it be in the guise of Western conservatism, Islamism, Neo-Liberalism or anything other toxic ideology is to focus on tolerance and education. Western foreign policy (colonialism) over the past centuries has created the situation we find ourselves in. When you create the conditions for cancer to prosper then you have to deal with the consequences. Instead of altering our policies we double up on them and then wonder why people hate us. We create conditions where people have nothing to lose (for example Iraq/Syria) and their only options are to fall back into impulsive/conformist organizational structures because that gives them some sort of security and purpose. Too many people have been ostracized by the contemporary world and we do nothing to help them, instead our political policy is to kick them while they are down. In my mind what David Cameron represents is as toxic as what ISIS represent however since it affects me much more in my daily life I would say it is a far greater danger to my way of life than ISIS will ever be.
      - vixen99 11y ago
        Can you give an example of the 'far greater danger' to you in your daily life?
        rorykoehler 11y ago
        The Great Recession....
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - EliRivers 11y ago
        Banning something has never done anything but push it underground. True, but that's not always a bad thing. Some things that are pushed underground happen a lot less. Murder, for example, is banned. Instances of it are (often) vigorously investigated, and the perpetrators dealt with (to varying degrees of effectiveness). I suspect that if murder was not banned, it would happen a lot more.
  - anon1385 11y ago
    >can't do anything about because they can't prove they've broken any laws. Yes, that's how the rule of law works.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      It seems so simple, yet it is the antithesis of all secret government policies in the western world for a while.
    - LLWM 11y ago
      Yes, that's why he's challenging how the rule of law works. Otherwise people wouldn't be so obsessed with this quote. Surely when it comes to a topic like this, you could come up with some reasons why a change to the status quo is bad other than "that's not how we do it now"?
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    "Just look at what these loonies are doing! We can't have people openly supporting the slaughter of innocent people and baby seals. They are undermining the values we hold dear, and corrupting the youth with their hateful message! Obviously, we need to place certain limits on free speech" What? Of course you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't misuse it!
    - smitherfield 11y ago
      There is no right to free speech in the UK. You can go to prison for a racist tweet, for example, which is a whole lot less reasonable than putting a great deal of scrutiny on people who go on the TV news and talk about how they want to become terrorists (e.g. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis-supporter_news http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis... http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-walsh-supporters-of-terror.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-wal... ). Which is absolutely ridiculous and would never be tolerated in the US, the only country in which there's anything approaching an absolute right to free speech.
      - Coding_Cat 11y ago
        Still, the quote from David Cameron almost suggest an extra-legal approach, and definitely insinuates increased spying on it's own citizens. The whole "terrorists propaganda" issue could be dealt with by introducing new laws, as things should go in a rule-of-law, perhaps one which classifies certain groups as hate-groups and bans the promotion of their ideals, I believe similar laws exist in many places in Europe.
      - arethuza 11y ago
        You are correct - but I also vividly remember a message playing as I went through security in a US airport a couple of years ago saying that things like inappropriate jokes etc. could result in arrest.
        semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  - Zenst 11y ago
    Indeed and in this case the laws get flaugnted, the laws that protect free speech and human rights being abused. Interestingly in the Boston area churches etc openly collected money for the IRA upto 9/11 and then perspective of what there money was supporting was clear. But with ISIS, I do not think anybody can be in doubt about what any money for them is supporting. Still laws be them TAX laws, have loop-holes and they get abused, not by the common people who they were done to protect but by those without ethics.
- skrebbel 11y ago
  IMO, yes. Taking it out of context is great because it shows the true horror of that kind of thinking. Nearly all oppression starts with some lovely quote about catching the terrorists or protecting the children. You need to take that context away to see the idea the way it really is.
- mhuffman 11y ago
  Well it is not totally unrelated, and I think it bears repeating, due to shear audaciousness, if nothing else. It would be the equivalent of Obama publicly stating on TV that Americans have been "getting a bit too uppity with the free speech" and "we are about to change all that!"
  - themartorana 11y ago
    This is the funniest and scariest thing I have read today, but it's brilliantly illustrative.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Maybe I am thick, or maybe it's just that I haven't finished my coffee yet. Please tell me what context that I am missing that makes Cameron's quote acceptable.
  - fennecfoxen 11y ago
    The article identifies: "The need to tackle radicalism in Britain has been underlined by the flow of hundreds of Britons to join Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria - most notably Kuwaiti-born Londoner Mohammed Emwazi, who has appeared in videos showing the beheading of Western hostages." [reuters article linked above] So... What Cameron is saying is that... too long have we been passively tolerant of people who are actively seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, just because they haven't broken the law. We need to reject that approach, be more careful and watch out. He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself. Myself, I think that quotes like this are the empty calories of politics, like Hilary's "what difference does it make" (which was about prioritizing embassy safety over discovering the perpetrators of the incident in the ultra short term) or Bush's "is our children learning" (which, if you haven't watched the video for that, was an awkward rendition of "that question is: are children learning?") DISCLAIMER. (UN)DESIRABILITY OF AND ACTUAL IMPLICATIONS OF ANY POLICIES ARE LEFT AS AN EXERCISE TO THE READER.
    - anon1385 11y ago
      Cameron's government is expanding the definition of extremist to include 'non-violent extremists', which is people who disagree with the vague 'British values' or are opposed to the current democratic system. So it is very clearly and explicitly not just about people who support ISIS violence, although of course that is what the government wants people to think.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      And the very situation that has allowed the growth of things like the Islamic State demonstrates the failure of the kind of authoritarian approach that Cameron seems to crave: A less tolerant government has never historically lead to a more tolerant populace other than in the very short term.
- gaius 11y ago
  somewhat out of context Well consider that Thatcher's "no such thing as society" quote was actually in the context of calling on people to take positive action to look after their neighbours and their community rather than waiting for someone else e.g. society to do it for them. Yet her opponents twisted it to imply the exact opposite.
s_kilk 11y ago
Oh how I wish we (Scotland) had decided to part from these lunatics.
- arethuza 11y ago
  A few more policies like this and a No vote in the EU referendum by the UK and a Yes vote in Scotland and I can see another independence referendum happening before 2020 - which I personally think is too soon, even though I did vote Yes in the last one.
  - s_kilk 11y ago
    I agree. Have you noticed a change in the air since the referendum? It seems to me that people are pretty sour about the outcome, it's the second time in a row that Scotland has voted almost unanimously against the Tories and still ended up with a Tory government. I'm seeing even staunch anti-independence voters start to reconsider their positions.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      My own view was that I was fairly happy with the status quo after the referendum and before the general election - but it turned out that keeping that wasn't an option. The rUK has swung decisively to the right (e.g. UKIP 12%), the Conservatives have a majority on their own without the moderating influence of the Lib Dems - which is fine as we are a democracy but the people of Scotland clearly have wildly different views (SNP 50%, UKIP 1.6%). Then of course there is the prospect of BoJo as PM - which I think would pretty much guarantee a rapid dissolution of the UK.
      - s_kilk 11y ago
        Agreed on all counts. For those who don't know what we're talking about: this map of the recent UK election results should illustrate the huge divide between Scotland and England: https://flipchartfairytales.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screen-shot-2015-05-11-at-10-03-33.png https://flipchartfairytales.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/scre... They are two very different cultures.
rndn 11y ago
What is the evidence that this is a failed approach?
- DanBC 11y ago
  (I am strongly against the government's stupid changes; I strongly support the human rights act etc) All the children travelling to Syria? All the money being raised for terrorist organisations - from people who know the money is going to be used for terrorist purposes? The murder of English soldiers on British streets? The plot to kill other soldiers by a british teenager? The recent IRA plot to assassinate Prince Charles and Camilla? The fact that PREVENT is a "toxic brand" and widely distrusted? There is a bunch of stuff happening that causes some concern to UK government.
  - ccvannorman 11y ago
    And the best solution they can come up with is "Let's oppress the SHIT out of everybody, then everything will be .. better!"
    - Zenst 11y ago
      Yet we live in a society that accepts locks on doors and the need for encryption and pin codes for bank cards which equally oppress our time and our trust in others, yet we accept that as a balance in that it protects us from bad people, even if we never know or come across any. Not a perfect solution by far, but this is not a perfect World and until you get a society in which people do not lock doors as no need etc, is when security becomes oppression.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    How many children went to Syria? A few thousand at most and that's being generous. Hardly a cause for concern. It's statistically inconsequential beside I can think of a thousand and one ways to prevent this happening in a non-aggressive, inclusive and progressive way. All these policies are going to do is disillusion even more people.
junto 11y ago
So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult. George Orwell, 1984
fixxer 11y ago
Terrifying language from a civil liberties stance, but not altogether shocking given the existence of radical groups within the UK territory. What scares me about government, both in the US and abroad, is not the polarization of parties, but how quickly the dominant ideologies cycle from left to right. The pendulum swings to fast.
- lawnchair_larry 11y ago
  When has it ever swung "left"?
  - arethuza 11y ago
    I think you would have to admit that the 1945 general election that removed Churchill from being PM and that went on to introduce the NHS was most definitely a swing to the left.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      Considering that was 70 years ago, that's an unusual definition of "fast". It was also the last peak for the left. The trend since then has an acceleration rightwards. Don't forget the UK came close to removing a democratically elected prime minister in a right-wing coup - not just once, but twice. The last genuinely left-wing prime minister resigned not long after the second alleged plot - and by a divinely-ordained coincidence his replacement was so utterly useless the electorate found themselves voting for the kind of right wing government the plotters had been working towards.
      - arethuza 11y ago
        "his replacement was so utterly useless" Do you mean Callaghan - my recent readings of the relevant histories (particularly those by Dominic Sandbrook) paint him in rather a positive light. Callaghan and the other "real" socialists were as appalled by the behavior of the unions then as everyone else.
  - 11y ago
chestnut-tree 11y ago
In case anyone hasn't seen this image on Twitter already: "What David Cameron said actually seems perfectly reasonable if you're a comic book supervillain." https://twitter.com/BrigonChomhgail/status/598828273452326912 https://twitter.com/BrigonChomhgail/status/59882827345232691...
- Zenst 11y ago
  true, but if you add the words TAX infront of the word law then those same words ring a much different perspective. Though not the finest hour in word choice; The old idiomatic antithesis "The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law" is in effect what he probably meant.

bediger4000 11y ago

The article doesn't touch on snooping "privileged" conversations, like attorney/client, which are typically considered legally sacrosanct, but GCHQ is known to have listened to. How are UK attornies (forgive me, I don't know the correct term) taking that? How are the judges taking it? Does this "secretly introduced" legislation make that legal as well? At what point does "secretly introduced" legislation become anything other than tyranny? I would think very rapidly, but what do I know?

rmc 11y ago
> How are UK attornies (forgive me, I don't know the correct term) UK has solicitors and barristers.
- arethuza 11y ago
  Scotland has solicitors and advocates - although some solicitors can also appear in the higher courts (Court of Session for civil matters and the High Court for criminal).
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Solicitors can in many cases appear in higher courts in England too these days, after the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
  - rmc 11y ago
    Just after I wrote that, I thought "I'm pretty sure Scotland has advocates, maybe I should update my comment."
  - gsnedders 11y ago
    Solicitors can also appear in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for civil matters (the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction for criminal matters in Scotland and therefore under Scots law).
- sillygoose 11y ago
  .. With highly silly wigs!

higherpurpose 11y ago

Isn't this what they call a "secret law"? UK citizens should be in the streets over this. Completely unacceptable for any democracy.

sillygoose 11y ago
Sneaking laws in when no one's looking, without a public discussion is pretty much standard practice in all democracies. It's clear they know the masses would object to those laws, but our representatives pass them anyway. Maybe that tells you something about "the system".
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  I come more and more to the conclusion, that democracy -- at least, how we practice it today -- is not working. At least with this level of commitment of the people, it is just a hide and seek game between politicians and the masses and the masses loose, because they are bored away from the political game. The big winners are the big corporations world-wide, because they know how to play the game or at least how to pay the people who know.
  - glesica 11y ago
    > The big winners are the big corporations world-wide, because they know how to play the game or at least how to pay the people who know. It even goes beyond that. The corporations use policies that benefit them to enrich themselves. Some of that enrichment can then be paid out to the politician. What do ordinary citizens do with policies that benefit them? For the most part, they just live their lives in peace. Even when those policies make the people wealthier, it is much harder for the politician to get paid because the new wealth is so disbursed. Really, it's just the market interacting with the politics. I have come to believe that, far from being natural allies (as is commonly held), democracy and market economics are actually quite incompatible for this reason.
    - sillygoose 11y ago

aidanhs 11y ago

I've tried reading the circular [1] (which seems to be a summary of the changes) and can't see anything about immunity. The article also lacks direct quotes or links to relevant sections. Does anyone have more specific source on this detail? Edit: this factsheet [2] on the computer misuse amendments only mentions a clarification that investigation may be performed against UK citizens even if they're located outside the UK at the time of the crime. No mention of immunity or extra powers. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417131/20150325SeriousCrimeActCircular.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415953/Factsheet_-_Computer_Misuse_-_Act.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

justincormack 11y ago
It seems, according to [1] that the impact of the changes has been obfuscated. I cant find a specific article with citations though yet. [1] https://www.privacyinternational.org/?q=node/584 https://www.privacyinternational.org/?q=node/584
makomk 11y ago
This wasn't mentioned in any of the summaries or fact sheets at the time, which is why no-one noticed it. The first anyone heard about it was when the government's lawyers claimed it granted GHCQ immunity a few days ago. I believe it was also hidden in a deceptively titled section of the bill in question.
makomk 11y ago
This wasn't mentioned in any of the summaries or fact sheets at the time, which is why no-one noticed it. The first anyone heard about it was when the government's lawyers claimed it granted GHCQ immunity a few days ago. I believe it was also hidden in a deceptively titled section of the bill in question.
lambada 11y ago
Here's the section of legislation in question. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/44/prospective#section-44-2-a http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/44/prospe... Specifically it turns Section 1(1) [Unauthorized access offence definition] above has effect without prejudice to the operation— (a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure; and [...] into Sections 1 to 3A [Unauthorized access / access with a view to further offences / access with intent to impair / making or supplying artefacts to enable the above] have effect without prejudice to the operation— (a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure or of any other enactment by virtue of which the conduct in question is authorised or required ; and [...] The governments position is that this change (I believe this is the right one anyway) gives ordinary rank-and-file GCHQ officers immunity from hacking offences because their conduct will be 'authorized' (by the government) and 'required' (to protect us from the Bad Guys). Previously what was permissible under the Act could be construed to be tighter than what GCHQ were doing - were they only inspecting searching and seizing? Certainly before the Act didn't give them explicit immunity from the later offences such as intent to impair the system. Side note 1: Enactment is defined in a legal sense, to mean pretty much any legislation. I'm unusure as to whther the definition it provides allows for e.g. Statutory Instruments (which rarely have any debate in Parliament) to also be covered under the definition. Side note 2: It also makes the same changes to Scotland, which for legal reasons, tends to get called out in separate subsections with minor variation on the wording if the Act applies at all. Obviously, IANAL.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago

Similar thing here in Germany: Government brought up the so called "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" (data preservation law) again, only to prevent terrorist attacks. Similar laws where cancelled by our "Bundesverfassungsgericht" (German constitutional court) and also at the EuGH (EU constitutional court). But still they brought it up again, because "the terrorist danger is so high" ... and of course they said, that the data will only (we promise!) be used in these cases. Now, short time before the law shall be passed (it should be rushed threw the parliament, of course!), they added some additions to the law, that the data can be also used at any crimes committed in the internet. That is exactly, what was criticized by our constitutional courts before. The law makers try to install such laws again and again. They are not interested, whether it is constitutional or not. When they fail, they wait for the next terror activity and bring up the same bullshit again. That is the reason, why I come to believe, that our democratic systems are bound to fail (again). With so few people caring about our constitutional rights, we will loose them. The lack of care for the constitution allowed it, that the NSDAP "legally" changed a democracy to a dictatorship once before. It can happen again -- in any country.

freddealmeida 11y ago

It must be clear, at least to those who understand, that no democracy can exist with two laws to govern the same act. One for the people and one for those in power. It comes as a sad conclusion that the UK is in actuality truly an oligarchy. It is not only time to see how long it takes the population to realize how horrible that is.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kropotkinlives 11y ago
You're right. However don't expect any sympathy from those of us who do understand and have fought against it where possible any more. The citizens of the UK have hanged themselves over and over again simply due to idiocy, media induced hatred, class war and nationalism. We deserve this fate. If you want to make a difference now, it's best to do it from the inside as the political winds cannot be stopped. Sabotage is the only answer.
- aagha 11y ago
  What are you calling for w/ "sabotage"? Non-violent protests? Civil disobedience? More?
  - kropotkinlives 11y ago
    Neither. Just get a job at GCHQ and proudly do a bad job.
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>UK is in actuality truly an oligarchy // As a monarchy with a highly defined class structure perhaps the UK has realised already?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

coldcode 11y ago

Yet again the meme continues: George Orwell did not write 1984 as a design document.

DigitalSea 11y ago

If only George Orwell could see us now.