UK Snooper's Charter, AKA The Investigatory Powers Bill, Passes Through Commons (betanews.com) 88
Mark Wilson quotes a report from BetaNews: The controversial Snooper's Charter -- or the Investigatory Powers Bill as it is officially known -- has been passed through the House of Commons by UK MPs. An overwhelming majority of politicians (444 to 69) voted in favor of the bill which has been roundly criticized by both the public and technology companies. The Investigatory Powers Bill grants the UK government, security, and intelligence agencies greater powers for monitoring internet usage, as well as permitting bulk data collection and remote hacking of smartphones. The law allows for the kind of mass surveillance that Edward Snowden warned about, and while the bill may have passed a majority vote, there are still those who fear not enough has been done to safeguard individuals' privacy. UPDATE 6/7/16: The title/body has been updated to clarify that the bill has been passed through the House of Commons. It will have to pass through the House of Lords before it becomes law. As one Anonymous Coward pointed out, the House of Lords may send it back for modification or reject it entirely.
So long, UK. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the Doctor can't save you now.
Re:So long, UK. (Score:4, Informative)
Even the Doctor can't save you now.
The Doctor protects Earth from external threats. He's quite happy to let us tear ourselves apart. However, being fictional has him at a considerable disadvantage, which only a stand alone complex [wikipedia.org] could hope to resolve.
Re: (Score:2)
I see this is the topmost thread in an important news item. Let's talk about Doctor Who. Man, I love that show...ran for like....ten years or something. I think it's based on a character from "King Kong Escapes". Is that right?
Re: (Score:1)
"The best option now is to spread that loss all around"
In Canada, politicians (national, provincial, and municipal) have been saying they'll be more transparent for years but so far they've actually made it harder to access information.
Inaccurate: it's not law yet (Score:3, Informative)
Incorrect. It has been approved by the House of Commons vote. But it is not law, yet.
It has to pass the House of Lords, and they may send it back for modification or reject it entirely. If they reject it three times, it is finished. This has happened, and there are many signs the Lords do not approve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Inaccurate: it's not law yet (Score:1)
So are we, please enjoy the internet we created for you and the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not happy that this legislation has got this far, but fuck me I am glad I am not American.
The only reason that legislation like this gets made into law is because the people writing it and making it into law are exempt from it. The law should have a clause restricting anyone passing a law from which they themselves are exempt.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair I wouldn't read too much into the relative votes, the real test is always the final vote in the commons. A lot of MPs that don't support these bills still vote for them before the final stage precisely because they either want the Lords to analyse it before making a final decision, or because they want the Lords to scrap it.
The thing to realise is that if they vote against it they're embroiled in a political campaign, come re-election time their opponents can claim they're pro-terrorist and other
Re: (Score:2)
The lords do throw out bad laws from time to time and they get nothing but stick for being undemocratic. I have yet to hear anyone come up with a better idea though.
Re: (Score:3)
Under the Parliaments Act 1911 and 1949, the House of Commons can vote to over rule the House of Lords and pass a bill into law without the agreement of the Lords.
Labour did this to enact the Hunting Act 2004, which banned fox hunting, so its still fully available to current governments.
Re: (Score:2)
We should prepare ourselves for the worst, because the Lords will almost certainly let most of it pass. The government has done its usual thing of putting in some really outrageous stuff for the Lords to complain about, so that the rest of the freedom and privacy destroying contents pass unrestrained.
A VPN service is a good start. They are cheap (less than a fiver a month) and will block most data collection by your ISP.
A little late but.... (Score:1)
It looks like the start of 1984!
Re: (Score:3)
There's a reason the setting of the book was "Airstrip One..."
Corbyns Labour party (Score:1)
This was only made possible by Labour voting with the Conservatives in a manner completely against what their party was meant to represent. I had high hopes that the Labour party under Corbyn would have reverted from the shallow, dishonest suits that had taken it over under "New" Labour. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss. Facism by any other name would smell as vile.
House of Lords could reject it (Score:5, Informative)
It has been passed, but it can still be pushed back by the House of Lords.
The Register has a more informative, but shorter article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Um.. I don't know much about UK politics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hereditary peers no longer have a right to vote in the House of Lords. The overwhelming majority of the House of Lords are life peers with only 92 selected hereditary peers being members.
Re: (Score:3)
The intention of the House of Lords is to have a voting body which is not beholden to an electorate, so they can make the unpopular decisions and not be punished for it.
This is the same House of Lords which rejected 90 day detention of terrorism suspects without charge, which was something the government was desperately trying to push through a few years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the basic idea of having an independent house to scrutinise and approve/reject legislation from the commons. It is the same idea as he US senate, except the Senate to a certain extent has the same motives and incentives as the House.
I would largely opposed to an elected HoL. As far as I can imagine it would, after the first couple of elections, reform along party lines and become a copy of the Commons and thus lose all of its independence.
I find the appointment system to the Lords to be problematic,
If you keep voting for the same people... (Score:4, Insightful)
An overwhelming majority of politicians (444 to 69) voted in favor of the bill which has been roundly criticized by both the public and technology companies.
Yet those same people keep voting the same idiots into office...
You only have yourselves to blame... we have the same problem in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
There is corruption and fascism everywhere. I weep for the US, their election is looking like a choice between cancer and rabies.
There is some truth to that...
I cringe when Trump makes some of his comments, they are so unnecessary...
I support Trump as much because Hillary is evil and he is just... Trump... as actually supporting Trump...
I'll vote for him, but he isn't my first choice either...
BTW, which would you rather have, cancel or rabies? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Please remember that at the last general election, even together the Tories and Labour only polled around 67% of the popular vote, and that on a turnout of 66%. That means more people did not vote for either of those parties than did at the last election, and they seem to be the ones whose MPs for the most part supported this bill. And that's with a first-past-the-post electoral system, which realistically means plenty of the votes they did get were probably tactical rather than genuine preferences.
It's har
Re: (Score:2)
CGP Gray's "First Past the Post" video...
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo [youtu.be]
It's hard to vote someone else into office when the system is so biased and the people currently in office have every incentive to keep it that way.
That is why you need guns, lots of guns... We used them 200+ years ago to get rid of King George, he rather sucked...
You should read the first part of the Deceleration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Bold text is the important part for the purposes of this post...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think guns are what we need. What we need is for enough people to care that the current system becomes untenable and a better alternative becomes the only credible option for those making the decisions.
Unfortunately, even the modest change to use AV (i.e., IRV) instead of FPTP was voted down by around 2:1 in a referendum just a few years ago, after a horrible campaign that did the advocates about as much credit as the current EU referendum nonsense both sides keep spouting. The irony is that in the
Re: (Score:2)
voted against AV fearing that if they endorsed that then it would stick forever when what they really wanted to see was more radical change.
This has to be one of the stupidest things I ever heard, but I did hear it lots. Such a insane way to shoot yourself in the foot, striking down an incremental improvement and 'holding out' for a more radical change that will clearly never come about if the smaller change can't be agreed on.
But then there are those that claim they will swing from voting Sanders to Trump, so I suppose some brains defy understanding...
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. -- Winston Churchill
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think guns are what we need./quote. :) At the end of the day, it usually takes violence to remove a government that doesn't listen to its people.
I'd think the British, of all people, would know this...
Re: (Score:2)
In extreme cases, yes, historically that has been true.
Unfortunately, I think the real problem we have is not that our government is not listening to its people, but that so many of its people have so little to say. About one in three eligible voters didn't even vote in the last general election, even though it was looking extremely close in the polls beforehand. Far fewer usually turn out for things like council or MEP elections. Far fewer still actually engage with their elected representatives in any sub
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I think the real problem we have is not that our government is not listening to its people, but that so many of its people have so little to say. About one in three eligible voters didn't even vote in the last general election
That is more than the US, where half the people don't vote... but a large part of that is so many people don't see any REASON to vote, feeling it doesn't matter or make a difference...
If we were talking about something like a government refusing to relinquish power after losing a reasonably free and fair election
Do you honestly feel that you have "free and fair elections"?
I don't, and I don't think we have them in the US. We have 4 serious political parties here, yet only 2 of them get on the TV for news or debates.
Republicans
Democrats
Greens
Libertarians
Yet the last two are laughed at and get no time or attention by the media and are
Re: (Score:2)
In a FPTP system when you inevitably alternate between two big parties most of the time, that's a tall order.
The real trick is to change the election system... The FPTP is broken beyond repair, it is a flawed system that needs to go.
Note: We also are in the same boat, but worse thanks to our "Electoral College" where we don't even vote for President directly and the votes in 40 of the 50 states generally don't count anyway.
Al Gore in 2000 got more votes than George W. Bush, yet Bush became President because of that system.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why you need guns, lots of guns... We used them 200+ years ago to get rid of King George, he rather sucked...
You should read the first part of the Deceleration of Independence:
He did. Though unfortunately you rather overestimated how much power the monarch wielded then and then gave all that misunderstood power to the president of the new US. The US president has far more power than he really should have in comparison to even the UK king then.
Arming the populous with guns could make some sense when all the state military had was guns. Now the military has jets, missiles, unmanned drones... you'd probably have to up your civilian militia tech level somewhat to actually have any ef
Re: (Score:1)
He did. Though unfortunately you rather overestimated how much power the monarch wielded then and then gave all that misunderstood power to the president of the new US. The US president has far more power than he really should have in comparison to even the UK king then.
Yes, I actually agree with you there...
Arming the populous with guns could make some sense when all the state military had was guns. Now the military has jets, missiles, unmanned drones... you'd probably have to up your civilian militia tech level somewhat to actually have any effective armed power.
Which is why you need well armed civilian militias who are well enough armed to keep the government scared of the people. This doesn't mean everyone needs to own a tank, but local cities and towns should be able to have their own security forces that are well enough armed and cannot be taken over by the federal government.
The state guards could fill this role, if somehow the President couldn't "nationalize" them, which is FUBAR...
The USA was actually fine, until the C
Re: (Score:2)
Even glossing over that; you make it sound like there's an alternative to having idiots run the country. I have never seen a politician or party in the UK that I think is qualified to run the country or make important decisions. They're all blithering idiots with their own agendas that couldn't care less about what their constituents actually want. They spout utter no
Re: (Score:2)
The first-past-the-post voting system we have in the UK is very biased. The majority of people who voted did not vote for who is in charge.
tl;dr; We have a faux-democracy. Best we can do is hope the guys in power don't screw it up too badly.
You don't have a democracy at all, you're just serfs rulled over by Kings by another name, and don't even know it.
You've been given the illusion of freedom without actually having very much. And you gave up all your guns so you can't actually do anything about it either.
The liberals in the US want to do the same thing, bunch of complete idiots is what they are.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have a democracy at all, you're just serfs rulled over by Kings by another name, and don't even know it.
Follow up to my own post... We aren't really any better off in the US, sad to say...
Our Kings however, are corporations who have cronies in the political parties... and they have done a good job of getting most people to "pick a team", thinking that it is a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Our electoral system is badly broken. Every five years you get one vote to select a local MP, on a first-past-the-post system. In other words, whoever gets most votes in your area wins, and all other votes are discarded.
Whichever party gets the most MPs gets to form the government. They get absolute control in most cases, the other party who got 1 MP fewer has no power. That part gets to pick its own Prime Minister, and you as a voter have no say in any of this.
So come election time, you have to pick who yo
Re: (Score:2)
Our electoral system is badly broken. Every five years you get one vote to select a local MP, on a first-past-the-post system. In other words, whoever gets most votes in your area wins, and all other votes are discarded.
Then why don't you do something about it?
Change the rules, throw out your existing government, tell them all to go pound sand. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I did try... we had a referendum on a better system, but people were too dumb to understand it. I mean, it was really simple, easy for an 8 year old to grasp, but somehow people were either proud of being thick. Well, some people said they got it, but then rejected it on the grounds that other people were too thick.
I've pretty much given up at this point. Accepting the stupid and working with it is the only option.
Re: (Score:1)
I did try... we had a referendum on a better system, but people were too dumb to understand it.
This is why I said you need guns, lots of guns...
Referendums don't work, tell me how many times in history that has ever really worked...
The sad reality is that what does work is to take the current leaders out behind a barn and shoot them. That isn't politically correct to say, but it is true.
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree.
I mean it's impossible that they're not dumb and just happen to have a different opinion to you.
Re: (Score:2)
No, people openly admitted that they were too dumb to understand it. Go back and check some news reports from that time, one of the major themes was people saying they didn't get it or bizarrely that they thought other people didn't get it. The opposition threw in some confusion and uncertainty with nonsense like "the loser could win" too.
You have to understand that the British public are ignorant, and that's how they like it. Even now, a week away from the EU referendum, people are saying they don't know w
Re: (Score:2)
I don't necessarily blame the politicians. Ultimately their job is to keep winning elections. I don't mean to be cynical by saying that, but fundamentally they can have all the ethics and principles they want but if they don't win elections they are out.
Voting against a bill like this leaves them very exposed to attack from the 'law and order' contingent. Voting for it does not leave them very exposed - in the UK and the USA the online freedoms argument does not poll highly in either raw numbers or intensit
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, you have a point... (not sad against you, sad against reality)
The question becomes, how do we get leaders who stand on principle and do the right thing?
Evil should be fought in all its forms, and this is one of them. A man of principle would never support this.
Wahaha (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
When I first moved to the UK and discovered Guy Fawkes Day, it was unclear to me as to whether they were celebrating the fact that the plotters were stopped in time to prevent them from blowing up Parliament -- or the fact that they tried.
I'm shocked (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The government is quite open about how it wants to abuse these powers. They have already said they give low level police and the tax office access to data illegally collected by GCHQ and MI5. If you read the comment submissions on this bill, one of the first was from Trading Standards who wanted to use the data to investigate people selling dodgy DVDs and fake Rolex watches down the market.
What to do when spying is legal (Score:2)
The digital ability to watch people create computer content is about all most advanced nations have fully invested in. Staff and contractors with security clearances to watch one person wonder around per day in 8-12 team member shifts per interesting person can
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about mindset. (Score:1)