5 ms·

New monitoring powers 'to tackle terrorism' proposed

68 points by jsingleton 11y ago

higherpurpose 11y ago
It seems like this is proposed in the same way the Patriot Act was proposed to the public. "We need this to go after those suspected of terrorism". Yet the bill allowed them to intercept data of many more people and not just for terrorism, but drug crimes and so on. If what they really need is to go after "suspected terrorists", then all they should need is a warrant from a judge. But of course this bill is not about that. It's about spying on everyone, and about censoring "extremist speech" (I assume the government gets to decide what is extremist, too, and not a judge?). Checks and balances are supposed to exist for a reason. We've played this game before giving governments total power to "do stuff", including "protecting us", "improve the economy", "national security", whatever. It doesn't end well for the population. In fact, it ends exponentially worse than any "threat" mentioned when the government asks for such powers, for every single person, not just those "who have something to hide" or are "extremist".
- hahainternet 11y ago
  This was proposed many years ago but blocked by the Lib Dems. Now the people of the UK destroyed the Lib Dems, there's nobody to oppose this. A lesson in picking the lesser of evils. Nobody will learn it though, and the UK is screwed for the forseeable future.
  - qrmn 11y ago
    Not many years ago - just 3! The Tories have a slimmer majority now than they had in the coalition, and a Lords which isn't all roses and flowers about this. And the Lib Dems (in one of the few promises they actually kept) sent the Draft Communications Data Bill rejected last time over to an independent parliamentary committee - which promptly savaged its drafting and lack of consultation, amongst other things: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-communications-bill/news/full-publication-of-report/ http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/... If the Tories come back with the same draft or worse, it will have a very hard time. I've written to my MP already - and got a copy-pasted bit of Tory party manifesto back, which indicates how much thought she's put into it so far I suppose - but it does at least contain a paragraph about not wanting to propose sweeping mass surveillance legislation obviously, which this in fact is, so I'm going to reply again when I have sight of the draft to pick out the specific problems. I can at least try to get her to read it and reflect my concerns.
    - robin_reala 11y ago
      My Tory MP is a party whip; I’ve given up on writing to her.
      - adwf 11y ago
        That's slightly better than having Theresa May :( No luck with any letters I've sent there!
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        I still believe that it is worth it. She is I hope/believe a frighten old woman who simply does not understand the world and is lashing out irrationally (the alternative explanation for the laws she wants to pass don't bear thinking about). Intelligent letters may help to quell her fear and help her understand. Or at the very least let her know that she is losing voters.
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      By tradition the HoL won't block laws which a party ran on during an election. So because the Tories ran on this, it massively curtails what the Lords can do unless they break from tradition (which is highly unlikely). All the Lords can do, is amend it and send it back to the commons until they're happy. And typically they only do that if they feel there are legal problems (e.g. ECHR/EU challenges). So I guess what I am saying is: Don't expect the Lords to block this. If it is a manifesto promise they cannot/will not.
  - alextgordon 11y ago
    The Lib Dems were destroyed because their core vote hated them. A lesson in not double-crossing your core vote. Edit: Apparently the Lib Dems are universally loved, and never did anything wrong. I retract my statement.
    - zelos 11y ago
      14,000 new members of the Lib Dems since the election would suggest it's not as simple as that.
    - Super_Jambo 11y ago
      It was definitely significantly more complex than that, the loss of short money was I think a factor.
    - hahainternet 11y ago
      > A lesson in not double-crossing your core vote The thing is, even if they did that, they actually were an effective moderate voice. They did actually prevent exactly this sort of thing previously. They should be judged on their achievements, not on an unachievable election promise. An election they didn't win.
madaxe_again 11y ago
This is about "combatting online terror" in the same way that reducing the benefits cap is about "helping working people". Newspeak and doublethink abound.
- kropotkinlives 11y ago
  Those two points are 100% factual. The benefits cap reduction paid for people who are working to have their personal tax-free allowance raised and decreased the reward for not working ergo they are helping working people by providing tax relief as a reward. This just isn't the same "helping working people" soundbite that the vocal minority of media and population are annoyed about however which is where the disparity arises. They are ramping up surveillance with the intention of combating online terror. But there probably isn't anything much going on, but they're still doing it so they can be seen to be doing it. Now I don't necessarily agree with the situation, would personally smash the state in a second, nationalise all industry and live as a strong fisted respectable worker under a common flag, singing Auferstanden aus Ruinen in a second but newspeak and doublethink it is not.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    > They are ramping up surveillance with the intention of combating online terror. But there probably isn't anything much going on, but they're still doing it so they can be seen to be doing it. The stated intention of combating online terror. However much like their ISP filtering, it was used for things other than the stated purpose within the first 6 months.
    - kropotkinlives 11y ago
      That is merely human nature. Humans in quantities more than one aren't trustworthy even if their initial intentions are good. Bad solutions attract bad people eventually. That's what happens in that 6 months...
    - DanBC 11y ago
      ISP filtering has not been used for other things. There are three seperate systems: 1) the mandated porn filters; these are optional. Some of them have granularity so the customer can select other categories of stuff to block 2) court ordered blocking of torrent sites. These are quite seperate from the porn filters and they require a judge to rubber stamp an order. 3) the IWF lists of sites dealing in images of child sexual abuse. This is a system voluntarily used by most UK ISPs to filter sites that contain images of child sexual abuse. When arguing against them it's probably useful to at least be factually accurate about the different systems.
x5n1 11y ago
We need more control because of fear.
- hellrich 11y ago
  I thought it was more fear because control...
jsingleton 11y ago
Relevant: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/05/thoughtcrime.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/05/thoughtc... (previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9564281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9564281) If you care about this sort of thing then please consider joining the ORG (https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/) and/or writing to your MP.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  > writing to your MP. One of the few advantages of a fptp voting system is that MPs have a very real constituency link. If enough people write on issues like this then MPs have to either listen or accept that they are directly losing support. So please do write to them.
beedogs 11y ago
England has always been about five years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to authoritarian garbage like this. Look for these sorts of bills to be introduced in other places if it's successful there.
AC__ 11y ago
All 5-eyes partner nations are passing egregious legislation such as this, these programs are being brought in under the guise of combating "terrorism" however are more designed to monitor and quell civil unrest and thwart would be dissidents.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Don't forget the chilling effect on free speech.

68 points by jsingleton 11y ago

It seems like this is proposed in the same way the Patriot Act was proposed to the public. "We need this to go after those suspected of terrorism". Yet the bill allowed them to intercept data of many more people and not just for terrorism, but drug crimes and so on. If what they really need is to go after "suspected terrorists", then all they should need is a warrant from a judge. But of course this bill is not about that. It's about spying on everyone, and about censoring "extremist speech" (I assume the government gets to decide what is extremist, too, and not a judge?). Checks and balances are supposed to exist for a reason. We've played this game before giving governments total power to "do stuff", including "protecting us", "improve the economy", "national security", whatever. It doesn't end well for the population. In fact, it ends exponentially worse than any "threat" mentioned when the government asks for such powers, for every single person, not just those "who have something to hide" or are "extremist".

hahainternet 11y ago
This was proposed many years ago but blocked by the Lib Dems. Now the people of the UK destroyed the Lib Dems, there's nobody to oppose this. A lesson in picking the lesser of evils. Nobody will learn it though, and the UK is screwed for the forseeable future.
- qrmn 11y ago
  Not many years ago - just 3! The Tories have a slimmer majority now than they had in the coalition, and a Lords which isn't all roses and flowers about this. And the Lib Dems (in one of the few promises they actually kept) sent the Draft Communications Data Bill rejected last time over to an independent parliamentary committee - which promptly savaged its drafting and lack of consultation, amongst other things: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-communications-bill/news/full-publication-of-report/ http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/... If the Tories come back with the same draft or worse, it will have a very hard time. I've written to my MP already - and got a copy-pasted bit of Tory party manifesto back, which indicates how much thought she's put into it so far I suppose - but it does at least contain a paragraph about not wanting to propose sweeping mass surveillance legislation obviously, which this in fact is, so I'm going to reply again when I have sight of the draft to pick out the specific problems. I can at least try to get her to read it and reflect my concerns.
  - robin_reala 11y ago
    My Tory MP is a party whip; I’ve given up on writing to her.
    - adwf 11y ago
      That's slightly better than having Theresa May :( No luck with any letters I've sent there!
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        I still believe that it is worth it. She is I hope/believe a frighten old woman who simply does not understand the world and is lashing out irrationally (the alternative explanation for the laws she wants to pass don't bear thinking about). Intelligent letters may help to quell her fear and help her understand. Or at the very least let her know that she is losing voters.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    By tradition the HoL won't block laws which a party ran on during an election. So because the Tories ran on this, it massively curtails what the Lords can do unless they break from tradition (which is highly unlikely). All the Lords can do, is amend it and send it back to the commons until they're happy. And typically they only do that if they feel there are legal problems (e.g. ECHR/EU challenges). So I guess what I am saying is: Don't expect the Lords to block this. If it is a manifesto promise they cannot/will not.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  The Lib Dems were destroyed because their core vote hated them. A lesson in not double-crossing your core vote. Edit: Apparently the Lib Dems are universally loved, and never did anything wrong. I retract my statement.
  - zelos 11y ago
    14,000 new members of the Lib Dems since the election would suggest it's not as simple as that.
  - Super_Jambo 11y ago
    It was definitely significantly more complex than that, the loss of short money was I think a factor.
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    > A lesson in not double-crossing your core vote The thing is, even if they did that, they actually were an effective moderate voice. They did actually prevent exactly this sort of thing previously. They should be judged on their achievements, not on an unachievable election promise. An election they didn't win.

madaxe_again 11y ago

This is about "combatting online terror" in the same way that reducing the benefits cap is about "helping working people". Newspeak and doublethink abound.

kropotkinlives 11y ago
Those two points are 100% factual. The benefits cap reduction paid for people who are working to have their personal tax-free allowance raised and decreased the reward for not working ergo they are helping working people by providing tax relief as a reward. This just isn't the same "helping working people" soundbite that the vocal minority of media and population are annoyed about however which is where the disparity arises. They are ramping up surveillance with the intention of combating online terror. But there probably isn't anything much going on, but they're still doing it so they can be seen to be doing it. Now I don't necessarily agree with the situation, would personally smash the state in a second, nationalise all industry and live as a strong fisted respectable worker under a common flag, singing Auferstanden aus Ruinen in a second but newspeak and doublethink it is not.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > They are ramping up surveillance with the intention of combating online terror. But there probably isn't anything much going on, but they're still doing it so they can be seen to be doing it. The stated intention of combating online terror. However much like their ISP filtering, it was used for things other than the stated purpose within the first 6 months.
  - kropotkinlives 11y ago
    That is merely human nature. Humans in quantities more than one aren't trustworthy even if their initial intentions are good. Bad solutions attract bad people eventually. That's what happens in that 6 months...
  - DanBC 11y ago
    ISP filtering has not been used for other things. There are three seperate systems: 1) the mandated porn filters; these are optional. Some of them have granularity so the customer can select other categories of stuff to block 2) court ordered blocking of torrent sites. These are quite seperate from the porn filters and they require a judge to rubber stamp an order. 3) the IWF lists of sites dealing in images of child sexual abuse. This is a system voluntarily used by most UK ISPs to filter sites that contain images of child sexual abuse. When arguing against them it's probably useful to at least be factually accurate about the different systems.

x5n1 11y ago

We need more control because of fear.

hellrich 11y ago
I thought it was more fear because control...

jsingleton 11y ago

Relevant: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/05/thoughtcrime.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/05/thoughtc... (previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9564281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9564281) If you care about this sort of thing then please consider joining the ORG (https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/) and/or writing to your MP.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
> writing to your MP. One of the few advantages of a fptp voting system is that MPs have a very real constituency link. If enough people write on issues like this then MPs have to either listen or accept that they are directly losing support. So please do write to them.

beedogs 11y ago

England has always been about five years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to authoritarian garbage like this. Look for these sorts of bills to be introduced in other places if it's successful there.

AC__ 11y ago

All 5-eyes partner nations are passing egregious legislation such as this, these programs are being brought in under the guise of combating "terrorism" however are more designed to monitor and quell civil unrest and thwart would be dissidents.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Don't forget the chilling effect on free speech.