cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

UK Investigatory Powers Bill

Community Veteran
Posts: 2,283
Thanks: 219
Fixes: 1
Registered: 04-08-2009

UK Investigatory Powers Bill

In November, the UK Parliament passed this Bill. It will give wide-ranging surveillance powers to the Government, including the ability to hack into millions of UK citizens ordinary communications. It was originally proposed by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary and major players, such as Apple, Google and Twitter, not to mention a whole raft of security consultants, have warned that it will have serious implications for the global technology industry. It has not changed much since she was in that job.

The Bill will allow the Government to access people's electronic devices, or force IPs and telephone companies to hand over unencrypted records of anyone's call and browsing record. One of the main objections is that it allows bulk, rather than targeted data collection,  and is certainly open to abuse. Another spin-off is that if someone wants to access web sites deemed "over 18", that person will be obliged to prove their age by, for example, lodging credit card details with the web site provider. This will give the site provider immunity from further action. In other words, in this case it's up to the web user to prove that they are legitimately entitled to view such a site. However, all browsing records will be available indiscriminately and on request.

 

The Bill has been examined by the European Court of Justice, which has today declared it illegal because of its indiscriminate powers. It says that targeted intervention for the purpose of preventing serious crime would have been justified, but not the mass and indiscriminate data collection from everyone in the UK allowed by the new proposed UK spying regime. 

The UK's current capabilities in this area have been shown to be quite adequate without turning everyone's browsing habits into an almost "guilty until proven innocent" trip. 

 

 

 

15 REPLIES
SpendLessTime
Aspiring Hero
Posts: 2,375
Thanks: 585
Fixes: 53
Registered: 21-09-2009

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

Actually the judgement in the European Court of Justice  today has nothing to do with the law passed last month.

It was raised to the ECJ by the UK Courts for a challenge to the The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. 

The ruling does not make the new law illegal, it may make parts of the law unenforceable but only a court can decide that.

Also when you consider that the 2014 law was brought in as the security services had been doing this work since 2003, do you really expect GCHQ to stop their spying in any way, shape or form?

Community Veteran
Posts: 2,283
Thanks: 219
Fixes: 1
Registered: 04-08-2009

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 is due to be repealed by the end of this year. The Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) will be adopted in 2017 to replace it. The latter significantly expands the mass data-gathering powers challenged in this case.

The ECJ has decided on the IPA as a result of an appeal against DRIPA. It has everything to do with IPA.

And the answer is no to the second part, but that's not what I was saying.

 

Community Veteran
Posts: 13,923
Thanks: 514
Fixes: 7
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill


SpendLessTime wrote:

 

Also when you consider that the 2014 law was brought in as the security services had been doing this work since 2003, do you really expect GCHQ to stop their spying in any way, shape or form?


I don't think anyone ever had a problem with GCHQ or the other intelligence services spying on selected targets that had flagged up in their radar.

What we all had a problem with was the government wanting to record everything we do online and then making that information available to any publicly employed person that had their own agenda.

I've no idea why Theresa May ever thought it needed to change to be totally honest. GCHQ have the ability to monitor whatever they need and record it anyway (and they've probably been recording stuff instead of just monitoring it anyway). They clearly have been working with our other intelligence and policing services as they keep bragging about foiled terrorist plots and people being arrested. Why on earth did she feel it needed to change?

Lets face it, if the police were to arrest you for something and then say "Five years, seven months and 2 days ago you were on hotmail.com instead of yahoomail.com.. why were you there?" - I think its fair to say that very few people would be able to remember and this would then make the suspect not only look guilty but this would then be used in a court of law to sway a jury.

In other words, its the slow erosion of innocent until guilty from what I can work out.

You're better off going to prepaid mobile internet that isn't registered if you really want to hide yourself online because i'd be pretty certain that TOR and all those other annonymous networks and proxies will get tapped soon (if not already). With that said, no doubt the time will come when prepaid mobile broadband will have to be registered with ID seen - just like TV licensing when you buy a new TV (or has that stopped now?) although I don't think they took ID..

I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
SpendLessTime
Aspiring Hero
Posts: 2,375
Thanks: 585
Fixes: 53
Registered: 21-09-2009

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

@nozzer

I have read the official ECoJ judgement https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3245181-C-203-15-amp-C-698-15-Arre-T-En.html and it does not mention the IPA at all. It does concern itself with RIPA, DRIPA and DRR 2014.

 It does make for interesting reading though. 

The ruling is

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
1.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in
the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic
communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and
Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be
interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purpose of fighting crime,
provides for general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all
subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication.
2.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of
Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation governing the protection and security of
traffic and location data and, in particular, access of the competent national authorities
to the retained data, where the objective pursued by that access, in the context of
fighting crime, is not restricted solely to fighting serious crime, where access is not
subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority, and
where there is no requirement that the data concerned should be retained within the
European Union.

Notice the words "CRIME" in the ruling. If the UK Government claims "National Security" or "Defence" or "Public Security Interests" then this ruling is unenforceable.

VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,583
Thanks: 192
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

Does this mean we can have a replacement referendum?

Because we have discovered that the government wants to act like a bunch of oligarchs?

Jonpe
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 1,269
Thanks: 337
Fixes: 2
Registered: 05-09-2016

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

I just knew this is where it would lead when they translated the Bible into English, invented the printing press, and taught the common man to read.Laugh

Ignorance was so much easier to control.  In the days of empire, before the telegraph connection to India had been established, it took about three weeks for a message to get there, which, by the way, is not much longer than it used to take to get the answer to a simple question from a worker at BT's overseas call centre.

VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,583
Thanks: 192
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

What are you attempting to imply about me?

nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,671
Thanks: 108
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill


SpendLessTime wrote:

@nozzer

I have read the official ECoJ judgement https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3245181-C-203-15-amp-C-698-15-Arre-T-En.html and it does not mention the IPA at all. It does concern itself with RIPA, DRIPA and DRR 2014.

 It does make for interesting reading though. 

The ruling is

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
1.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in
the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic
communications), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and
Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be
interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purpose of fighting crime,
provides for general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all
subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication.
2.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, as amended by Directive 2009/136, read in the light of
Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation governing the protection and security of
traffic and location data and, in particular, access of the competent national authorities
to the retained data, where the objective pursued by that access, in the context of
fighting crime, is not restricted solely to fighting serious crime, where access is not
subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority, and
where there is no requirement that the data concerned should be retained within the
European Union.

Notice the words "CRIME" in the ruling. If the UK Government claims "National Security" or "Defence" or "Public Security Interests" then this ruling is unenforceable.


it might be just me but I read it as the 2014 act was illegal because the government was telling a private company what to do without giving them the money to do it and not stipulating they must house the stored info within the EU and only provide crime fighting access to law enforcement agencies when a specific warrant has been issued for it, unless under the guise of national security or organised crime, they didn't strike down the law just amend it, which ironically since the uk government already did those things in the IPA there isn't actually a problem with the "new" law ....

just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,322
Thanks: 467
Fixes: 1
Registered: 21-03-2011

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

Sadly as the indigenous population of this country are diluted we can no longer rely on the old social rules. Unfortunately legislation such as RIPA are necessary to ensure common safety and to defeat those who chose to ignore our legal government. Unelected judges from other nations are insulated from the consequences of their decisions. They do not lose their pensions if terrorist attacks succeed when intelligence gathering is suppressed.

Now Zen, but a +Net residue.
Minivanman
Hero
Posts: 4,794
Thanks: 1,046
Fixes: 1
Registered: 04-11-2014

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

Note to far off beam but watched 'Snowden' on http://cokencorn.com/ the free movie site last night. 

Recommended Thumbs Up 

All views expressed are my own but you can express them too if you want to be right about everything like I am.
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,583
Thanks: 192
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill


AlaricAdair wrote:

Sadly as the indigenous population of this country are diluted...?!?


What is the "indigenous population" - I suspect you mean white (or possibly pale coloured!).

Why not come clean and just say Aryan or some other racist comment.

My children are half ethnic Chinese and half ethnic Derbyshire.

How would you classify them (Good or Bad)?

Minivanman
Hero
Posts: 4,794
Thanks: 1,046
Fixes: 1
Registered: 04-11-2014

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

I see nothing wrong with using the word indigenous, it's a valid term.

I'm 'indigenous' to these islands and see nothing wrong with saying so, in much the same way as my wife is proud to say she is Welsh but that her entire family were Italian immigrants. Mind you, having traced my family back many generations on both sides, a maternal line that runs off from my fourth great grandfather has an anglicised Italian surname.... so what that makes my kids I have absolutely no idea.    

Sounds to me like you are being rather over sensitive if you don't mind me saying. Lets be proud of our ethnicity, and lets not as said be criticised for saying so.   

All views expressed are my own but you can express them too if you want to be right about everything like I am.
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,583
Thanks: 192
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

Do you mean "indigenous" or "ethnicity"?

You appear to be conflating the two words.

Minivanman
Hero
Posts: 4,794
Thanks: 1,046
Fixes: 1
Registered: 04-11-2014

Re: UK Investigatory Powers Bill

Well in this context they are interchangeable but which one do you have an issue with?

Such words are as said fine to use, the problem comes of course when we attach them to some rather dubious cause under that rather leaky umbrella of my country right or wrong. 

All views expressed are my own but you can express them too if you want to be right about everything like I am.