4 ms·

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

by 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.

by aidanhs 11y ago

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

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.