Big Brother is here (Snoopers Charter)

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5268

So how on earth will the tories and LD's dress this up ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

total invasion of privacy and something they argued against. Not sure where we would stand, I hope unlike the last govt we would be fully against it.

This is what China does not the UK

Read more: http://vote-2012.proboards.com/index.cg ... z1qms1MIZI

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

Ian Robo,

The re-appearance of these proposals is not unexpected. There has been considerable pressure within Whitehall-Westminster and Cheltenham for this data collection to be permitted legally. The name given sounds so innocuous: Communications Capabilities Development Plan; previously it was the Interception Modernisation Programme.

The BBC report refers to:

Quote:

A new law - which may be announced in the forthcoming Queen's Speech in May - would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant. But it would enable intelligence officers to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long.

As a critic observed:

Quote:

If this was such a serious security issue why has the Home Office not ensured these powers were in place before the Olympics?

What the legislation will further enable is traffic analysis (TA), who is contact with who? TA is one of the bedrock techniques of GCHQ and other similar bodies. The proposals do not refer to the content of communications.

Nice to see the BBC is catching up though, this story was placed in the public domain a month ago by The Daily Telegraph:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9090617/Phone-and-email-records-to-be-stored-in-new-spy-plan.html

One opponent lobby group has a petition to sign:http://www.e-activist.com/ea-action/widget?widgetId=947 and a Wiki on the proposals:http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Capabilities_Development_Programme

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5268

it is monsterous and before anyone says we wanted it, so what it was wrong then and grayling and huhne spot on to oppose it then, so why now ?

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5268

thing is if this plan is anywhere near this, it means the LD's can NOT vote for them nor the likes of David Davis who may see it as a the perfect chance to challenge cameron.

then for us we can make a break fro mthe past and condemn previous plans and vote against.

why would the govt push this through ?

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

I wouldn't think that David Davies would actually challenge Cameron on the back of this, but it does appear ludicrously and counterproductively intrusive. I would have thought that the intelligent spooks would be opposed to this as it would drive people towards encryption for day-to-day net activity.

I did hear rumours that way some time ago.

I am opposed to this. I thought it was an April Fool to start out.

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5268

I bet John and it will mean everything goes https and rightly so.

Can you clarify that would Clegg have had to give the OK to present this bill. It seems so divisive it makes no sense at this time to present this.

10missing · **Joined:** 01 Oct 2010, 23:01 **Posts:** 639

Has anyone suggested to Cameron that now might be the time to stop digging?

Forget all the guff about the NHS changes. This could be their Poll Tax.

derogatory · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 20:55 **Posts:** 3165

I don't understand what the purpose of this is? Presumably, to make any sense of all this information on phone and email contacts you need a target individual to start with. If you have evidence that this individual is involved with nefarious activities that justify gathering this information, why not simply apply for the appropriate warrants? Again, what's the point of collecting data on how many times bbc.co.uk or amazon.co.uk or restirred.com are visited? I'm sure there are websites whose traffic the authorities may have reason to monitor. But again, to make use of this, you need to know which sites you are interested in the first place and if you know that why not apply to specifically monitor just those sites?

Of the 62.2 million people in Britain, I can't imagine that more than 100,000 are engaged in terrorism or organised crime justifying monitoring of their activities. So what benefit does routinely monitoring the other 62.1 million people bring? How can the cost be justified?

And it is of course, the infamous slippery slope.

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5268

Dt, you and I totally agree here, the thing is, it ewas this coalition that called us (labour) too illiberal and yet this rears it's head ?

why ?

whats the idea behind it ?

tim · **Joined:** 06 Oct 2010, 16:28 **Posts:** 233

Quote:

Life Sharing is a real-time digital self-portrait. Started in the year 2000 and active uninterruptedly until 2003, Life Sharing is 0100101110101101.ORG's personal computer turned into a real time sharing system. Any visitor has free and unlimited access to all contents: texts, images, software, 01's private mail. One can get lost in this huge data maze. Based on Linux, Life Sharing is a brand new concept of net architecture turning a website into a sheer personal media for complete digital transparency. Permanent infotainment pioneering the peer to peer mass diffusion. Privacy is stupid.

http://www.0100101110101101.org/home/life_sharing/

This move so much reminds me of the above with the difference that a state with the sledgehammer of GCHQ in its employ will not be getting lost in a huge data maze ( like us mere mortals when confronted with a massive dump from wiki leaks or MP's expenses) but exploiting (first politically and then financially) this in so many ways. Under the guise of protecting us from terrorists the proposal will encourage many of us to adopt the very tactics they employ to evade such scrutiny. Off to build a pigeon loft.

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

ianrobo wrote:

I bet John and it will mean everything goes https and rightly so.

Https is designed to stop people being able to interpret the communication merely by having copies of the data that are transmitted.

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

David Davis MP was on BBC Radio Four's Today programme earlier:

Quote:

What this does is make (existing problems) 60 million times worse. The simple truth is that this is not necessary. What’s proposed here is completely unfettered access to every single communication you make. It’s a very, very big widening of powers which will be very much resented by many citizens who do not like the idea. It’s going to cause enormous resentment.

From an updated report in The Daily Telegraph, which has a nice photo:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9180191/New-powers-to-record-every-phone-call-and-email-echoes-China.html

What is rather bizarre upon reflection is the continuing opposition of the British government to allowing phone intercept as evidence. We are now the only common law jurisdiction and liberal democracy that does not allow intercepted calls as evidence (with two very minor exceptions).

If HMG wanted to have an impact on serious crime and terrorism this is a change that is needed. It is the opposition of the security agencies that has stopped this change, one reason cited is the cost. Now this far greater data collection is sought.

Plus the spill-over on phone intercepts not being allowed to be submitted, in private or public, in coroner's inquests; as discussed on the 'Deaths in police custody' thread.

LiKW · **Joined:** 30 Sep 2010, 19:43 **Posts:** 2292

Know where this comes from - from the people who gave you VAT on hot pasties...

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAct ... anguage=en

gerry · **Joined:** 01 May 2011, 20:52 **Posts:** 1559

The Government of the day has a duty to protect the security of the country, but needs to balance this with the privacy of the individual and our freedom of speech and expression.

DNA is a good tool for detecting suspects after a crime has been committed, but is its limited usefulness a justification for a Governmnet to pass legislation that requires every person in the UK to provide a DNA specimen on the basis that you can trust your Government not to misuse it.

The power to intercept or retrieve a record of every single persons emails, mobile phone calls, website visits and without a warrant allow GCHQ to see, who we are contacting, how often and for how long could be over the top. This government obviously consider we are all criminals and terrorists.

The Information Commissioner has already expressed concerns.

There will no doubt be the, If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, argument, but going back only a few decades ago it was a Criminal Offence to engage in Homosexual acts, if we had had such technology as we have to day in those times, the prisons would have been overflowing with Homosexuals convicted on intercepts and evidence of web sites they had visited.

This law will mean that you would not be wise to communicate using email or text or mobile phone unless your communication does not include anything that might cause concern to the authorities.

If I sent an email to a friend and said, "Had an argument with the wife last night, I will kill her for her moaning", can I expect a visit from the police on suspicion of plotting her murder?

Just consider what some of us post on this site and how it can be given another meaning.

Better get the Gulags ready for many of us.

This proposed legislation is totally against the principles of the Liberal Democrats and I cannot see how any of their MPs could support it, many decent Conservatives that support the freedom of the individual are opposed to this, Communist era type invasion into our lives.

Arthur · **Joined:** 06 Oct 2010, 23:01 **Posts:** 406

gerry wrote:

The Government of the day has a duty to protect the security of the country, but needs to balance this with the privacy of the individual and our freedom of speech and expression.

DNA is a good tool for detecting suspects after a crime has been committed, but is its limited usefulness a justification for a Governmnet to pass legislation that requires every person in the UK to provide a DNA specimen on the basis that you can trust your Government not to misuse it.

The power to intercept or retrieve a record of every single persons emails, mobile phone calls, website visits and without a warrant allow GCHQ to see, who we are contacting, how often and for how long could be over the top. This government obviously consider we are all criminals and terrorists.

The Information Commissioner has already expressed concerns.

There will no doubt be the, If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, argument, but going back only a few decades ago it was a Criminal Offence to engage in Homosexual acts, if we had had such technology as we have to day in those times, the prisons would have been overflowing with Homosexuals convicted on intercepts and evidence of web sites they had visited.

This law will mean that you would not be wise to communicate using email or text or mobile phone unless your communication does not include anything that might cause concern to the authorities.

If I sent an email to a friend and said, "Had an argument with the wife last night, I will kill her for her moaning", can I expect a visit from the police on suspicion of plotting her murder?

Just consider what some of us post on this site and how it can be given another meaning.

Better get the Gulags ready for many of us.

This proposed legislation is totally against the principles of the Liberal Democrats and I cannot see how any of their MPs could support it, many decent Conservatives that support the freedom of the individual are opposed to this, Communist era type invasion into our lives.

Spot on, exactly as I see it.

Arthur.

gerry · **Joined:** 01 May 2011, 20:52 **Posts:** 1559

Arthur, no doubt these posts are being monitored by some secret government agency and no doubt we will both disappear at the dead of night after the feared knock on the door, that is so feared in those totalitarian states of old and some modern ones, which my Beloved England will soon join if it chooses this path.

Meet you in the Gulag, bagsy top bunk.

sally 123 · **Joined:** 03 Feb 2012, 22:48 **Posts:** 1512

Oh lore Gerry with some of the so called jokes i have received on my mobile , then passed on (to prove how crass they were of course-you understand) ? i will see can i pass some choc bikkies that i sneaked in ,from the womens internment block!!!!!!! :lol:

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

This does appear to be a particularly oppressive proposal that should be binned ASAP.

gerry · **Joined:** 01 May 2011, 20:52 **Posts:** 1559

One of the things I admire about the Liberals and Lib Dems is their genuine desire to preserve civil liberties, they have fought for many years to slow the tide of the state intruding unreasonably in citizens private lives.

If this proposal goes ahead I see Labour latching on to it as a means to bash the Lib Dems and make it a party political issue.

No true Lib Dem can support the proposal in its current form, nor should any Labour supporter or right thinking Conservative.

LiKW · **Joined:** 30 Sep 2010, 19:43 **Posts:** 2292

johnhemming wrote:

This does appear to be a particularly oppressive proposal that should be binned ASAP.

Nice to see you getting all anti-EU John.

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5268

oh come on LIKW that is the cop out, from what i know the proposal dates from 2006 we ignored it since, Germany lost a court case trying implement.

Just do not do it.

LiKW · **Joined:** 30 Sep 2010, 19:43 **Posts:** 2292

ianrobo wrote:

oh come on LIKW that is the cop out, from what i know the proposal dates from 2006 we ignored it since, Germany lost a court case trying implement.

Just do not do it.

Read the links...

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5268

so reading that LIKW at what point do those allow the right to snoop on my emails ?

It seems more data protection if anything

johnhemming · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 12:43 **Posts:** 1188

LiKW wrote:

Nice to see you getting all anti-EU John.

What matters to me is whether it is right or not. Not whether it is seen as pro or anti-EU.

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

On the BBC's 'the World at One' James Brokenshire, a Home Office Minister, was interviewed over these proposals, standard stock phrases as expected and totally failed to explain what safeguards were to be included. Nor who would have access; a vast number of public agencies - far removed from serious crime and terrorism - can legally access communication data, except the Milk Marketing Board as one civil servant thought was too much.

The BBC News update on the issue cites him:

Quote:

Crime Prevention Minister James Brokenshire told the BBC it was not "some great big government snooping exercise", but a change designed to allow police officers to continue to solve crime in an era when communications data - details of phone calls - was used in 95% of all serious crime and terrorism cases. "We absolutely get the need for appropriate safeguards and for appropriate protections to be be put in place," he added.

There are other opinions in this report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17580906

An IT / technological analysis is also offered:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17586605 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17582974

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

Tonight's BBC News refers to a Conservative back-bencher, Dominic Raab, obtaining under FOI a 2010 report by the Information Commissioner on the previous proposals; which has been summarised by The Daily Mail as:

Quote:

‘Our position remains that the case for the retention of this data still needs to be made. The value of historic communications data in criminal investigations has not yet been elucidated.’ Worryingly, they warn of serious consequences for the public if mistakes are made when the data is being stored. Officials say: ‘Individuals may be wrongly identified, subject to identity fraud or there may just be a mistake. How do they put this right? Intelligence can be used to put people on no-fly lists, limit incomes or asset grabs by government agencies. 'This is a stark warning'..‘There needs to be a clear means of repair when something goes wrong, which it inevitably will at some point....The papers also warn of the potential for abuse by internet service providers, once they have been paid to collect the data'.

Link:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124251/Government-spy-websites-emails-texts-cost-taxpayers-2bn.html

Incidentally some of this article is well different on details.

Dominator · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:54 **Posts:** 2877

From a Tory who works in Parliament.

Quote:

Hmm. Pretty sure this whole surveillance Bill storm is a Munchausan Manoeuvre from the Lib Dems in Gov. Push it forwards behind the scenes, then heroically stand up and fight to stop it, winning back the liberal wing against "those nasty authoritarin main parties". Yawn.

By the way, there are many occasions when confidentiality or your right to silence is already overruled by the law. One example is anti-money laundering legislation.

tim · **Joined:** 06 Oct 2010, 16:28 **Posts:** 233

Dominator wrote:

From a Tory who works in Parliament.

Quote:

Hmm. Pretty sure this whole surveillance Bill storm is a Munchausan Manoeuvre from the Lib Dems in Gov. Push it forwards behind the scenes, then heroically stand up and fight to stop it, winning back the liberal wing against "those nasty authoritarin main parties". Yawn.

By the way, there are many occasions when confidentiality or your right to silence is already overruled by the law. One example is anti-money laundering legislation.

Coalition is......always having someone else to blame

While accepting that these rights can be overruled on occasion, when they are removed from
everyone it is unacceptable.

Dominator · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:54 **Posts:** 2877

tim wrote:

Dominator wrote:

From a Tory who works in Parliament.

Quote:

Hmm. Pretty sure this whole surveillance Bill storm is a Munchausan Manoeuvre from the Lib Dems in Gov. Push it forwards behind the scenes, then heroically stand up and fight to stop it, winning back the liberal wing against "those nasty authoritarin main parties". Yawn.

By the way, there are many occasions when confidentiality or your right to silence is already overruled by the law. One example is anti-money laundering legislation.

Coalition is......always having someone else to blame

While accepting that these rights can be overruled on occasion, when they are removed from
everyone it is unacceptable.

and that isn't what is proposed.

ianrobo · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 15:55 **Posts:** 5268

Dominator wrote:

From a Tory who works in Parliament.

Quote:

Hmm. Pretty sure this whole surveillance Bill storm is a Munchausan Manoeuvre from the Lib Dems in Gov. Push it forwards behind the scenes, then heroically stand up and fight to stop it, winning back the liberal wing against "those nasty authoritarin main parties". Yawn.

By the way, there are many occasions when confidentiality or your right to silence is already overruled by the law. One example is anti-money laundering legislation.

If your Tory is right then it would mean your party is fine for this new law anyway.

Re~Stirred Forum

Big Brother is here (Snoopers Charter)

Who is online