Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Government Privacy The Internet

For The UK's 'Snoopers' Charter', Politicians Voted Themselves An Exemption (independent.co.uk) 134

Posted by EditorDavid from the protecting-the-parliamentarians dept.
The "Snoopers' Charter" passed in the U.K. greatly expands the government's surveillance power. But before they'd enact the new Investigatory Powers Act, Britain's elected officials first voted to make themselves exempt from it. Sort of. An anonymous reader writes: While their internet browsing history will still be swept up, just like everyone else's, no one will ever be able to access it without specific approval from the Prime Minister. And according to The Independent, "That rule applies not only to members of the Westminster parliament but also politicians in the devolved assembly and members of the European Parliament."
The article adds that the exemption was the very first amendment they approved for the legislation. And for a very long time, the only amendment.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

For The UK's 'Snoopers' Charter', Politicians Voted Themselves An Exemption More

For The UK's 'Snoopers' Charter', Politicians Voted Themselves An Exemption

Comments Filter:

  • Surprising? Not so much. (Score:5, Informative)

    by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @11:48AM (#53420127)
    The UK masquerades as a democracy, and has for a long time. In reality it's the most hilariously over the top nanny state, The politicians there seem to make up laws for the sake of making up laws. I often wonder if this is just to give the illusion that a politician is doing something because fixing real problems is too hard.

    • Re: Surprising? Not so much. (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Looks like the UK is making war on its own people.

    • The UK masquerades as a democracy, and has for a long time. In reality it's the most hilariously over the top nanny state, The politicians there seem to make up laws for the sake of making up laws. I often wonder if this is just to give the illusion that a politician is doing something because fixing real problems is too hard.

      Stop wondering ... it is.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's often just laziness. Sexting children is a hard problem to solve, requiring more than 2 minutes of thought... So screw it, pass the problem on to the social media companies. Just say they can fix it, people will assume you know what you are talking about and no one can accuse you of not doing anything.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Teens sexting each other is not a problem to be solved. Adults sexting minors is about as solved as it's going to get, going down the legal system road. If you want to lessen the problem, we're going to have to explore other avenues besides making it illegaler.

      • Re:Surprising? Not so much. (Score:5, Funny)

        by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @01:51PM (#53420795)

        To quote the ministerial adviser from a well-known British poltical satire:

        "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, this must be done."

    • The UK masquerades as a democracy, and has for a long time. In reality it's the most hilariously over the top nanny state

      Democracies and nanny states are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are strongly correlated. Lots of voters want the government to be their mommy.

      The problem with the UK is that they lack the checks-and-balances that many other democracies have. The lower house has nearly all the power, and the PM has a majority coalition that can ram through stupid laws very quickly.

    • Re:Surprising? Not so much. - they're stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

      by anon mouse-cow-aard ( 443646 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @12:50PM (#53420429) Journal
      They clearly do not understand how these technologies work. How do they expect to be excluded from mass surveillance? In the words of Edward Snowden, "Security is a binary state" if they are collecting metadata on everyone, for example, there isn't going to be a tag on particular phone numbers to to say "this is a politico", either they are gathering for everyone or no-one. The only way to implement this is to gather all the info, and then annotate it with metadata about all the numbers that belong to politicos, you end up keeping a list of all their phone numbers, social media accounts, etc... so that you can remember that you aren't allowed to look at them. All such identities need to be registered with the government some how, so that they can be excluded. In reality, all the information will still be collected and indexed as that will be the only way to be able to use the information if the PM ever provides permission. In other words, on top of the data being collected, it will also be tagged as especially interesting.

      I don't think this achieves what the people proposing the amendment intend. They're being stupid.

      • Re:Surprising? Not so much. - they're stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

        by currently_awake ( 1248758 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @02:41PM (#53421029)
        It perfectly achieves the goal of those who want the spying. Telling the ministers they are "exempt" from the spying is cheaper than bribing them to pass this law.
        • yes. obviously. that such an exemption only increases the excuses for data collection "we need to know who people are in order not to spy on them!" It's just unbelievable that they are that stupid. It's a useless thing to ask... If they are going to ask for something it should be something about greater transparency, more oversight of the collection, watching the watchers is the only thing that might be helpful, if you are going to have watchers.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Cryacin ( 657549 )
            Just wait until someone cracks the data store and some interesting surveillance information is made public. Repeal the law now old chaps?
      • Exactly. Is there extra funding for ISPs to add extra security for politician's data? If not, then it might not be easy to get with a search warrant, but you can bet that some of it will be leaked. Do MPs have some special sign-on for all Internet access? If not, then you can bet that some hotspot or mobile provider won't know that they're MPs and so will hand over the data when someone goes fishing for data on a particular IP address. Do MPs have their own Internet accounts that they don't share with

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Given their history of child sex ring abuse scandals one could argue that they needed to pass the exemption. That they can't see how this paints them speaks to the quality of our representation.

      truly shameful.

  • Guy Fawkes masks are going off the shelves in record paces.

    • Yea, lets wear a mask of guy who wanted to set up a theocracy...

      "Anonymous" and their ilk can keep their masks.

  • No approval needed (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So how will the request filter know who is and is not an MP? It won't, so their details will still be leaked all over the place from the food standards agency to the ambulance service, those hotbeds of fighting serious crime and terrorism.

  • Remember, on the Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Pig farm. If the prime minister isn't fucking you in the face [deathandtaxesmag.com], you're getting back-doored [slashdot.org].

    • It is also undoubtedly true that MP's are examined by all of the 40 odd agencies given access to the internet browsing history of the UK population, the only difference is that any data found cannot be used in a court of law to screw the bastards. No doubt the police will just plant or make up evidence as necessary.

  • Not quite (Score:3, Informative)

    by Unknown User ( 4795349 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @12:11PM (#53420237)
    The Prime Minister can still allow access to the browsing history of his political opponents, should there be a need for it.

  • I can see the reason. After all, there are a number of very good reasons why you don't want to hand out possibly blackmail-enabling information about your politicians.

    The shortsightedness regarding this amendment is that the previously mentioned reason can be extended to EVERY FUCKING PERSON ON THE PLANET.

    Guy Fawkes day (a la V for Vendetta, not the catholic stuff) is fast approaching in Britain.

    • Re:A tree in the forest (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @01:15PM (#53420579)

      I can see the reason. After all, there are a number of very good reasons why you don't want to hand out possibly blackmail-enabling information about your politicians.

      Yeah, it's so much better when only the prime minister can obtain "blackmail-enabling information", because he, of course, would never abuse such information to pressure members of the opposition party! Oh, no, not the prime minister!

    • I think America's train will reach the station first. Once they go broke the Federal and State governments will disband, leaving the army and police to form feudal countries from America's ashes.
  • Brexit the fucking UK off the inetrnet, they are becoming a security threat. Let them boil in their own nanny state shitbowl.

  • Why did you let them do this? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Brits, why did you let them do this? You're letting them take your freedom and letting them grant themselves powers that will keep you out of the loop and perpetuate their own power, preventing you from being able to do anything about it in the future. And what can you do to stop this from snowballing? Absolutely nothing now.

    Basically everyone in here is like "well we're fine we can circumvent this with encryption" yeah for now, but why bother implementing laws you have to circumvent? Just get off your asse

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bongo ( 13261 )

        But, but,but they have free health care. And one day, in the future, they'll get all of their energy from unicorn farts. Just believe and it will come true.

        Free at point of delivery.

        We charged you earlier, we charged you later, but we didn't charge you when you turned up with a life-critical wound from a horrific accident involving Christmas lights, brussels sprouts, and grandma's hairpin.

        Not that I don't have sympathy with the view that I shouldn't be contributing to the 20 billion a year it costs to look after diabetes, whilst I take care with my own diet so that I never become such a burden on the system. But I see the issue there as being more about all th

    • Brits, why did you let them do this? You're letting them take your freedom and letting them grant themselves powers that will keep you out of the loop and perpetuate their own power, preventing you from being able to do anything about it in the future...

      I could as easily ask "Yanks, why did you let them do this?" about any number of assaults on freedom and privacy committed by the US government. The US has been running headlong down the same road for 15 years and change, with nary a peep from Joe and Jane Average.

      Every time the government of a supposed 'free' country pulls shit like this, two things happen. First, the fact that the terrorists have already won their war against free countries becomes more and more obvious. Second, the differences between th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bongo ( 13261 )

        Brits, why did you let them do this? You're letting them take your freedom and letting them grant themselves powers that will keep you out of the loop and perpetuate their own power, preventing you from being able to do anything about it in the future...

        I could as easily ask "Yanks, why did you let them do this?" about any number of assaults on freedom and privacy committed by the US government. The US has been running headlong down the same road for 15 years and change, with nary a peep from Joe and Jane Average.

        Every time the government of a supposed 'free' country pulls shit like this, two things happen. First, the fact that the terrorists have already won their war against free countries becomes more and more obvious. Second, the differences between the 'free' nations and the terrorist states becomes harder and harder to discern.

        There is a difference though between, the government's physical power (police, surveillance, etc.) and what they use it for.

        USA has its share of people who value owning guns, and although that gives the individual a level of power which the Brits might think of as, well, just plain obsessive and weird, a citizen of USA can maintain that they have no bad intentions around how they use that power. And that is a fair point.

        Same principle goes for how we say, "oppressive dictatorship" to distinguish from benefi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The UK has always spied domestically and globally. The only thing that ever slowed the UK domestic spying down was budget issues and waiting for NSA contractors to install upgrades.
      From the 1914 Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) to getting all calls to from Ireland, Government Technical Assistance Centre to National Technical Assistance Centre to todays legal domestic equipment interference and ISP logging.
      Generations of UK politicians are addicted to the flow of domestic signals intelligence.
  • You've managed to one-up the U.S. so far as destroying the civil rights (and perhaps the human rights) of your citizenry. I feel sorrow and pity for people who have to live in the increasingly Orwelliean nightmare that the UK is becoming. What's next for you, UK? Are you going to ally yourself philosophically with the communist Chinese government? You may as well try pulling that one off too, you're not that far from it already. No, wait, next they'll try to 're-unify' the British Isles again -- by force, f

    • next they'll try to 're-unify' the British Isles again -- by force, for the 'safety and security of the people' I'm sure.

      Well, if the ~450 years up to the mid 1990's was anything to go by, it would not be smart to go down that route again.. We've worked hard to get to the current situation and we wouldn't be too inclined to be forced to give it up again,

  • don't worry (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @01:13PM (#53420563)

    Wikileaks will leak their browsing history once it will be captured as mandated by law.

    I'm looking forward to perusing it.

  • Wouldn't it be in the best interest of spies to get UK MPs to spy and now no one will be watching them.

  • What a horrible future... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by XSportSeeker ( 4641865 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @02:54PM (#53421097)

    US, Canada, India, UK... I guess this golden era of democracy is over. Here comes another round of dictatorships, population control and whatnot. Quite the dark heritage we're leaving for future generations.

  • It's interesting (in a scary way) to compare the plight of the US and UK.

    The UK has no constitution to speak of. It has a Human Rights Act, which acts as a mere slap on the wrist -- and the current Pry Minister wants to scrap it. However, we don't think she's a tyrant, just an authoritarian with bad taste in advisors.

    The US has a constitution, including embedded rights. Whether he is or not, Trump sounded like a tyrant when campaigning. The US constitution is dependent on both citizens willing to challe

  • Running neck and neck with the US - they are always talking about their special partnership, right? What the UK needs now is a buffoon as PM, to match Trump. They have the perfect candidate in Boris Johnson.

  • Data awaiting a leak (Score:3)

    by manu0601 ( 2221348 ) on Sunday December 04, 2016 @09:11PM (#53422487)

    Data is stil collected. This means at some time, an insider or a hacker will leak it.

    And since it is tagged "for use after prime minister approval only", it will be easy to leak only that data

  • Quite clever - doesn't cover their competition (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Builder ( 103701 ) on Monday December 05, 2016 @03:56AM (#53423585)

    This is quite clever of the established ruling elite. Their data is exempt and will not be collected or retained. But people new to politics running against them are not covered by this until they win.

    So anyone feeling challenged by a new player will now have an additional valuable tool in keeping their job.

Slashdot Top Deals

After all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is said than done.

Close