Snoopers law creates security nightmare - given Royal Assent today

5 of 5

TelevisionUser

02-12-2016

Originally Posted by Tassium:
“'Mark_Jones9' is putting out the standard propaganda spiel, he clearly has no interest in a debate.

He is amazingly well informed and has all the classic arguments lined up and ready to go.

Is he paid to do this?, I assume so. It's just not credible he's an interested member of the public.”

Those arguments read like an official Conservative party press notice on the subject though.

I get the need for the UK's police and intelligence services to have access to information necessary to prevent terrorism and crime but allowing the DWP, Department of Health, Food Standards Agency, etc. goes too far and it's well out of order. If the police need data from these bodies then they can request it; the bodies themselves should not have these same intrusive powers.

While regulation has now been formalised, which is a good thing, I still think that things need to go further, e.g. senior police and intelligence agency officers being regularly called before the Intelligence and Security Committee and a periodic review of this Act to see if it's fit for purpose.

There's also an interesting debate here which is worth listening to: The Investigatory Powers Act

mick r

03-12-2016

Petition now reaches 151,971 signatures .

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199

Russell Brand talks about on his youtube channel .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDsWemk16D0

Maxatoria

03-12-2016

It should also be said that all the oversight is appointed by the state (the prime minister)..hmmmm I wonder how many people will go against the person who can probably kick you out in a heartbeat and replace you with someone who will just agree the state can do no wrong?

mick r

04-12-2016

Petition now reaches 153,304 signatures .

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199

MPs exempt themselves from the snoopers charter .

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7447781.html

mick r

07-12-2016

Investigatory Powers Act allows the State to tell lies in court .

Section 56(1)(b) creates a legally guaranteed ability – nay, duty – to lie about even the potential for State hacking to take place, and to tell juries a wholly fictitious story about the true origins of hacked material used against defendants in order to secure criminal convictions. This is incredibly dangerous. Even if you know that the story being told in court is false, you and your legal representatives are now banned from being able to question those falsehoods and cast doubt upon the prosecution story.

Full story:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12...nglish_courts/

Glawster2002

07-12-2016

Originally Posted by Mark_Jones9:
“You are talking about identifying a terrorist purely from mass surveillance.

I am talking about following the communications from a already identified terrorist to associates.

According to MI5. Almost all of MI5’s top priority UK counter terror investigations have used intercept capabilities in some form to identify, understand or disrupt plots seeking to harm the UK and its citizens. The ability to access communications data is vital to our ability to protect our national security. Such data has been crucial to MI5 and to the Police in detecting and stopping many terrorist plots over the last decade.

Examples of communications data being used the way I said. Tacking communications from a identified terrorist to associates. Operation OVERT that stopped a plot to bring down multiple airliners. A key part of the evidence which brought the plotters to justice was coded conversations by email retrieved by police following their arrest, between the conspirators and Al Qaeda linked extremists in Pakistan, in which they discussed the preparations for their attacks and the selection of targets. For example the plot to attack the London Stock Exchange, a key part of the evidence that brought the plotters to justice was communications data between the plotters.”

You justified the 'snooper's charter' on the basis of catching terrorists, etc, hence my reply.

I, and I doubt anyone else, has a problem with the targeted surveillance of known individuals and groups operating with criminal intent.

However that is very different to using that as the justification for the entirely unwarranted mass surveillance of the population, which this bill enables.

Glawster2002

07-12-2016

Originally Posted by Mark_Jones9:
“I bother to read the government briefings and referred to parts of legislation. Its all available on line. You can see what has informed MPs votes, at least the MPs who bother to read the information they are given, which sadly is few.

If you choose to not believe the opinion of Judges who have heard all the evidence of the cases and say the child rapist was emulating porn. If you choose to not believe a Government commissioned independent overview of all available psychological research evidence. If you choose to not believe numerous neuroscience research. If you choose to not believe sexual offences crime stats showing rising sex offences including by young children. If you instead choose to believe that on average children first seeing internet porn at 8 years old, and children having easy access to a never-ending supply of hardcore porn is not harmful. Then there is no hope of you changing your opinion regardless of evidence.

As for my motives I do not want children, particularly young children supplied with porn, particularly hardcore and extreme porn. Because on the balance of probabilities its harmful to them.”

Whilst it is off topic, here is an article on how the government's new alcohol guidelines were drawn up.

No wonder Britain’s alcohol guidelines are so extreme – just look at who drafted them

The new guidelines were drawn up by a panel that was a very long way from unbiased or independent.

If the government can go to such lengths to produce new alcohol consumption guidelines using people whose views are so biased and quite willing to ignore any facts that don't suit their argument, who on earth would believe the government on anything else?

The government want to spy on the people, how much they drink, and censor what they can see online, and they are more than prepared to distort the truth to achieve their aim.

Originally Posted by Mark_Jones9;84765217As far as snoopers charter I see the internet as a public area. I do not see the internet as an area that should be lawless. [B:
“I want the various public bodies able to catch criminals. I am for being able to prosecute terrorists, paedophiles, organized crime, internet crime.[/b] I am also for more safeguards and judicial oversight of the request of communications data both of which the new legislation contains.”

If there was any evidence that mass surveillance of the population achieved that I would agree. However there is no evidence it will achieve that, in fact all the evidence shows the opposite will be true.

Maxatoria

07-12-2016

Originally Posted by mick r:
“Investigatory Powers Act allows the State to tell lies in court .

Section 56(1)(b) creates a legally guaranteed ability – nay, duty – to lie about even the potential for State hacking to take place, and to tell juries a wholly fictitious story about the true origins of hacked material used against defendants in order to secure criminal convictions. This is incredibly dangerous. Even if you know that the story being told in court is false, you and your legal representatives are now banned from being able to question those falsehoods and cast doubt upon the prosecution story.

Full story:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12...nglish_courts/”

Whats the point trying to have a judiciary? If the person cannot challenge the evidence put in front of them as its now illegal to say 'thats not what happened' we are entering a sort of system where the state/judiciary and the populace are being prejudged as i'm sure that if the state presents evidence that legally cannot be challenged by the defendant then whats the point as the state wins 100% of the time.

mick r

09-12-2016

Petition now reaches 172,440 signatures

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199

Porn website xHamster asks UK visitors if they are aware of the snoopers charter with a pop up which can direct them to the petition .

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...inst-snoopers/

paulschapman

09-12-2016

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/12/the...-the-future-2/

Quote:
“What is obvious is that such pervasive surveillance is fundamentally incompatible with living in a free and democratic society. If the state can watch your every move, and access your every private thought, dissent becomes impossible.
.
.
.
What is troubling is that for all of Trump’s incoherent campaign promises, the one thing that he is fairly consistent on is that he does not appear to respect the norms of democracy, and that he has, at the very least, some authoritarian tendencies that could threaten the foundations of western democracy.

For example, during the campaign he relentlessly attacked the media, he repeatedly claimed that the election was going to be rigged despite no evidence existing and even suggested at one point that he wanted to throw his opponent, Hillary Clinton, in jail. This goes against some of the key norms that keep a society democratic and free, such as respecting the peaceful transition of power and the political independence of the justice system.
.
.
.;
Surely it could be tempting for him to spy on the “failing” New York Times, to dig up dirt on the journalists who will be reporting on him?
”

mick r

21-12-2016

EU data retention ruling goes against UK government . EU judges said communications data could only be retained if it was used to fight serious crime. EU member states cannot force internet companies to keep email data on a "general and indiscriminate" basis, the European Court of Justice has ruled.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390150

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016...oopers-charter

https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/21/...eatens-ip-act/

Soppyfan

21-12-2016

As I expected would happen from the beginning, it's already kicking off badly.

5 of 5