The Snoopers Charter

[rolyberkin]

No one wants surveillance but everyone wants their families to be safe from terrorists, online hackers, wants everything done when their bank account is emptied by organized criminal groups, want action if their kids are subject to predatory behaviour online from pedophiles. Well my friends, wake up and smell the coffee, you want protection and to be safe, then you have to give up some of this so called (non existent) privacy. I hazard a guess that if I did an online consenting database check on any of you who are complaining about this unnecessary affront to your privacy your full details would be splashed all over the web in the public domain in any case!

 

[FatAlan]

Biggest issue is the obstruction placed by private businesses on access to data by law enforcement agencies which the criminals use to their full advantage. If you lose money via a fraudulent money transfer the banks won't provide police the details of where the money has gone without a court order despite you reporting the fraud to the bank. Mean time money has long gone. Some phone companies are still really obstructive about providing phone data. All depends on whether you want your crime investigated folks...and that is getting very rare these days unless the perpetrator is bloody obvious.

 

[Marvo]

No one wants surveillance but everyone wants their families to be safe from terrorists, online hackers, wants everything done when their bank account is emptied by organized criminal groups, want action if their kids are subject to predatory behaviour online from pedophiles. Well my friends, wake up and smell the coffee, you want protection and to be safe, then you have to give up some of this so called (non existent) privacy.

I don't think the wholesale invasion of everyones privacy is having much sucess in preventing terrorists or paedophiles. Both those groups are more often than not tach-savvy enough to avoid detection. Every single day kids are still getting groomed and 'lone wolf' terrorists are driving trucks into Christmas markets.

I hazard a guess that if I did an online consenting database check on any of you who are complaining about this unnecessary affront to your privacy your full details would be splashed all over the web in the public domain in any case!

You'd be wrong. I use TOR, I use end to end encryption for all messaging and internet activity, I use complex and unique passwords, I use hardware and software firewalls on my routers, local drive encryption on laptops and PC's etc. I don't partake in social media and most times if I ever absolutely have to supply an email address I use a disposable. My critical laptops and PC's run versions of Linux biased for privacy. None of my visible web content is under my actual name. I recently got my first iphone and deliberately chose a chinese brand that could be rooted and reinstalled to provide privacy so GPS is disabled, transmitted packet monitor etc. I'm not saying I'm untraceable but I'm not making their lives easy.

Biggest issue is the obstruction placed by private businesses on access to data by law enforcement agencies which the criminals use to their full advantage. If you lose money via a fraudulent money transfer the banks won't provide police the details of where the money has gone without a court order despite you reporting the fraud to the bank. Mean time money has long gone. Some phone companies are still really obstructive about providing phone data. All depends on whether you want your crime investigated folks...and that is getting very rare these days unless the perpetrator is bloody obvious.

I think the crucial flaw in your concerns here is that all the instances you've stated are not about prevention of crime, they're about making inverstigation easier after the crime has already been commited. The milisecond money disappears from a bank account it's already long gone, no amount of sacrificing your privacy is going to make one iota of difference to that fact, all it's doing is making the police investigation easier (assuming they're actually interested in investigating), it means the police no longer need to do actual police work, they can sit at a desk in front of a computer instead. Sorry but I'm not willing to sacrifice my privacy for their convenience.

 

[rolyberkin]

So you have no mortgage, no credit, no insurance,no utility bills, never use your name on any documentation, no driving licence etc etc etc.

 

[Marvo]

So you have no mortgage, no credit, no insurance,no utility bills, never use your name on any documentation, no driving licence etc etc etc.

Yes but I'd expect any info I surrendered to the establishments that supply the things you mentioned to be kept private and not shared willy nilly with my local ambulance service or any other organisation for that matter.

I think you may be misunderstanding my stance. I'm not saying I want to live off the grid entirely I'm saying I value my privacy and any time I interact in an area where I can't control who is privy to my information I'll take steps to protect it myself.

 

[rolyberkin]

RIPA is not about the wholesale invasion of everyone's privacy it is about putting in legislation a framework whereby those who have a legitimate need to access information are able to do it with the protection of legislation, it is a balance to the human rights act which tends to be used to provide protection to those who consistently prey on the vulnerable in our society using the internet and other sources of data. You are right that there will never be 100% success in targeting those who prey on the vulnerable but in my mind if it prevents one child being subjected to emotional or physical sexual abuse, prevent or detect terrorism or protect an elderly person being fleeced of their life savings then to potentially give up a bit of privacy is a worthwhile sacrifice.

 

[Marvo]

There's a lack of oversight and the list of organisations entitled to the info is way too broad. The requests for info by security services under the existing framework run into hundreds of thousands. Obviously, with the expanded number of organisations now with their spoon in the pot, this number is going to increase radically. There's no way that each of these requests can be individually and thoroughly assessed for validity so it just becomes a rubber stamping exercise. Also there's the fact nobody ever wants to deny a request because of the likelyhood of them becoming the scapegoat down the line so they're far more likely to approve invalid requests to cover their own asses.

As for the argument 'if it saves one child or one victim or stops one terrorist.......' I completely disagree. A persons right to privacy has always been a fundamental right and as such it can't be trumped by another fundamental right. In the US it's written in stone in the constitution, in the UK, up until fairly recently, it was deeply enshrined by centuries of case law but it has now been erroded by very recent legislation.

The 'if it saves one child' argument is the kinda sheep fodder main course the government will feed the general population to pass self-serving legislation. followed by some 'if you've got nothing to hide' fodder for dessert.

 

[Dan]

Well this seems to have been swept through without much publicity.(By the folks who control publicity)
see The Government just passed the most extreme surveillance law in history – say goodbye to your privacy - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/snoopers-charter-theresa-may-online-privacy-investigatory-powers-act-a7426461.html
"Well I don't do anything wrong so it wont affect me ? "
Well it wont if you are an MP the very people who have introduced the bill have exempted themselves.
MPs just passed the most draconian spying laws ever. Guess who they made exempt - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-a7447781.html

Here's a list of who can snoop on you now.

Metropolitan police force
City of London police force
Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Security Service
Secret Intelligence Service
GCHQ
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gambling Commission
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
Information Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust

Under the guise of counter-terrorism, the British state has achieved totalitarian-style surveillance powers – the most intrusive system of any democracy in history. It now has the ability to indiscriminately hack, intercept, record, and monitor the communications and internet use of the entire population.



Anyone read the book 1984?

Would be interested in your comments please.

Use a proxy service and end to end encryption email and tor browser and things like that if it's a big thing you're concerned with.

Most large firms already have data on all of us anyway.

It does annoy me but what can we do?

 

[Dan]

How can I protect myself from government snoopers? - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2016/nov/24/how-can-i-protect-myself-from-government-snoopers

A cool article.

 

[Wilko]

My concern is the lack of balance. I hear of police hampered in their investigations etc, and I don't want that. On the other hand, there's the shopping list of pedestrian agencies that can now do it ... So I'd like to see penalties for incorrect use of information, to give pause for thought when we've apparently agreed we no longer need a judge and a warrant to get in their way. Perhaps these penalties already exist?

 

[Dan]

It's going to get abused for sure. It'll be years before a whistleblower announces it lol

 

[FatAlan]

You may find that list of agencies is just those authorised under RIPA. I fail to see whether a local authority or like could ever justify getting involved in intercepting or monitoring communications. You need very high level authorisation for that.

 

[FatAlan]

Police only play lip service to fraud investigations. What they do look at is just the tip of the iceberg. Action Fraud just sweeps everything under the carpet as there are no resources to investigate. Currently all detectives are tied up on historic sex abuse investigations.

 

[Marvo]

My concern is the lack of balance. I hear of police hampered in their investigations etc, and I don't want that. On the other hand, there's the shopping list of pedestrian agencies that can now do it ... So I'd like to see penalties for incorrect use of information, to give pause for thought when we've apparently agreed we no longer need a judge and a warrant to get in their way. Perhaps these penalties already exist?

There never are penalties for incorrect use of information. After the Snowdon revelations on the UK illegal monitoring activities there was zero fallout, they just passed new laws to to make their illegal behaviour into legal behaviour.

It's not about 'hamperaing' investigations, it's about making police activities easier but if you want to do that then the best way is nighttime cerfew or military law, roadblocks every mile as you enter city centres, make everyone carry full boimetrics ID documents around their necks. The job of the police will be a doddle......it will be a pretty ---- life for everyone else though.

 

[Barry White]

Well its been challenged by the European court of justice. EU judges said communications data could only be retained if it was used to fight serious crime.
I agree the Act was too wide reaching with poor guidelines.
Of course there will be an appeal.

See EU data retention ruling goes against UK government - BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390150