▲ 173 points
back
72 comments
> Taken together, the requests reflect exactly what critics of the Investigatory Powers Act feared would happen: that a once-shocking power that was granted on the back of terrorism fears is being slowly extended to even the most obscure government agency for no reason other that it will make bureaucrats' lives easier.
> None of the agencies would be required to apply for warrants to access people’s internet connection data, and they would be added to another 50-plus agencies that already have access, including the Food Standards Agency, Gambling Commission, and NHS Business Services Authority.
I find this deeply worrying, but among the people I work with and my immediate circle of friends and acquaintances I am in the minority. In my experience, people just don't care that much (a fact which I find very, very sad and troubling). My partner for example who is an otherwise intelligent woman doesn't really care - her 12 year old son even less so. In fact, I'm pretty sure he will be part of the generation that will grow up to regard privacy as some sort of slightly weird, exotic commodity.
I grew up behind the Iron Curtain, and for a chunk of my life we lived with this sort of government intrusion - nay, we expected it. We expected letters from abroad to be opened and read, we expected telephone calls to be listened to and so on. Obviously, there was no judicial oversight. I remember we looked at the West with something akin to awe and longing: in the West, they don't read your mail, they don't snoop on your calls and sure as st they don't confiscate subversive magazines sent from abroad. It was like a fairy tale; in the West, they took your rights seriously.
30 years on, I look at the UK, my adopted home like a lover who fell out of love with the object of his desire. It turns out that when presented with the technical means to do so, the West is just as keen to eavesdrop and hoover up all your data: emails, phone calls, text messages, the lot.
Freedom and privacy are like a sausage comrades: you keep slicing at it until there's nothing left!
I'm a native Brit and whilst I agree our national lack of care about freedom is concerning I think it's slightly more nuanced than that.
My view is that people here are far too trusting of those in authority, and in particular counter-terrorist police and security services personnel. The attitude seems to be "if they think they need this then they know best". The collective psyche seems to take more comfort in the moral character of the people given the powers than in the safeguards against misuse.
On the positive side, almost noone I know thinks that it's appropriate that local councils or the Food Standards Agency have these powers. Those parts of government are largely viewed as "nannying busybodies" and the "nannying" bits of government are mostly distrusted - there does remain a British sense of freedom.
What's worrying though is that people don't seem to believe that minor agencies actually have been given these powers. When I've had conversations with people about this the reaction is "you're just exaggerating to make a point" or "they won't really do that, you're just concocting a far-fetched scenario that's technically legal but wouldn't happen in practice".
> My view is that people here are far too trusting of those in authority, and in particular counter-terrorist police and security services personnel.
I always though "brainwashed by TV" was an exaggeration. But the more I discuss with people, the more I realize they think the police/hospital/army/court works like on TV.
E.G: they expect that if there is a murder, an NCIS like team with try to find the murderer, or if they get strange like disease, some Dr House will be assigned to find the solution, or that judge are impartial and mayors are competent to deal with the solutions their city require. The reality is that people are average human being with limited resources everywhere. They are lazy, have ego, have a small budget, are tired, have an agenda, have bosses and politics, etc.
"authority, and in particular counter-terrorist police and security services personnel" is no different.
Also a Brit and I share the view that people are too trusting of authority. I also tend toward a distrust of authority.
However, to play devils advocate, I sometimes wonder if we are collectively too immature to not need some "nannying".
It wasn't long ago that food standards were compromised[0].
We also have problems with fly-tipping and dog fouling, both require a certain level of "nannying" to deal with. I just wish we could deal with such things without resorting to authority.
I share your pain, having similar background.
It is probably not technical means, they always existed, the telephones could be listened to, and letters could be always opened.
Forgetting the history and not learning from it. The West has lived in more or less peaceful democracy since WW2, two full generations have changed, and the memory has faded. We, easterners are still the generation which grew up in totalitarian regimes, we do still remember it.
People like you, who care about freedom and privacy, exist. I am also from behind the Iron Curtain, albeit I was born some years after it has fallen - fortunately, but the experience was ingrained in my parents. IMHO the problem is that people like us are distributed around the world, which puts us in a minority anywhere; we need to group up and watch each other's backs.
>We expected letters from abroad to be opened and read, we expected telephone calls to be listened to and so on.
Just checking that you know "communications data" in RIPA excludes the content of the message, and it refers only to the meta data?
They don't care because they don't truly know the depth of the implications.
Waaaayback I saw an Ad in an Motorist-Magazine saying. 'a Thousand Miles can be like a hundred' OT...but...best ^^
A celebrated example was the use of the freshly-minted "Prevention of Terrorism Act" to stop an old man heckling the Foreign Secretary:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1499466/Heckler-82-w...
Notably in that case the police yet again reflexively denied actually using the power:
"At first Sussex police denied that Mr Wolfgang had been detained or searched but a spokesman later admitted that he had been issued with a section 44 stop and search form under the Terrorism Act."
which rather suggests that they used as a convenient way to stop the government being embarrassed, as opposed to its proper use of frustrating serious crime (if they really thought he was a terrorist he'd have been processed with more diligence).
This is exactly why the position to adopt w.r.t. government spying powers is that _it should not have any_. Yes, even if that makes it easier for theoretical terrorists or pedophiles or what-not. That threat is far lower than the certainty of oppressive use of this powers by government.
Politicians and bureaucrats love the stuff that China does. So they want to have the same toys. They will never constrain themselves with stupid issues like human rights. And of course they will use these powers to our disadvantage. Sooner or later people will notice this. But tragically at that point there will be no way back except for violance. I make this sad prediction: The current trend to ever more oppression worldwide will backlash in violence. It might be that we will witness bureaucrats hang.
It's very rare for people to rise up against their leaders when they have food.
Since food is so very cheap in todays world, a country has to be in a very dire economic position before the government can't provide the people food and they overthrow it.
Even so, most governments will happily use their army against their own people, and with modern weapons being so efficient, even failing to feed your people doesn't necessarily lead to a change in government. Modern governments are very stable, except for outside influence.
I do not think it is a matter of food. I think that an oppressive regime will inevitably decrease the conditions for the poor masses. Look at how poor black people are massively overrepresented in US prisons. I think this is caused by the simple fact that the oppression takes the path of the least resistance. Now combine this with city-wide riots and you have a recipe for a "nothing left to lose" situation that could quickly escalate.
What's the official justification behind this? First, it was terrorism, then maybe a pandemic, what's next?
It was all so predictable, and yet so little has been done to prevent this.
Apathy is a powerful tool, how depressing.
What would be some practical solutions since democracy doesn't seem to prevent this from happening?
The justification is linked prominently in TFA http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2020/9780111195499/pdfs/...
Indeed it is: "These regulations include the addition of five public authorities who will gain the power to obtain communications data as they are increasingly unable to rely on local police forces to investigate crimes on their behalf."
It isn't obvious to me that the proper fix for the police being inadequately resourced for investigating crimes is to grant policing powers to a wider range of departments. In principle the police receive both specialist training and supervision to ensure that their powers are properly used; abusive use of the earlier RIPA legislation by councils became notorious, e.g:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-coun...
Yes, and it's very vague indeed: crime, risks and hazards, and fraudulent activities. These are terms that governmental organizations can use as they see fit, depending on the situation.
>what's next?
Take your pick from the following: The economic fallout of the pandemic -> failed states -> more migration waves..... Don't forget the ongoing climate catastrophe.
All things that could be solved without resorting to authoritarianism if we were a little less of an, to paraphrase Q from Star Trek NG, "adolescent child race".
>What's the official justification behind this? First, it was terrorism, then maybe a pandemic, what's next?
Paint me a cynic but I'd not be supprised if we don't see the headline of "Terrorist pandemic" used in headlines within a few years as the definition of `terrorist` is expanded to include everything upto and including a badly worded tweet that is open to strawman interpretations.
Ironically:
> the British government is asking that five more public authorities be added to the list of bodies that can access data scooped up under the nation's mass-surveillance laws: [including] the UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping (UKNACE)
The Register has an annoying habit of using very loose language that has the effect of overstating surveillance powers.
For example; "And lastly, the Pensions Regulator, which checks that companies have added their employees to their pension schemes, need to be able to delve into anyone’s emails so it can “secure compliance and punish wrongdoing.”
The phrase "delve into anyone's emails" here is an absurd mischaracterisation
Yep. Anything that implies 'direct access' or 'trawling' moves from being fear mongering to simply being untrue. 'Rifling through emails' and the like is showing a poor understanding of the legislation at best and deliberately trying to create fear uncertainty and doubt at worse.
Would you care to expand on exactly why you perceive that to be an inaccurate description?
So the only way to keep my data safe is to rent a VPN in a country that don't get along with the "n eyes" countries. Wanna guess how many options are left ?
Using e.g. a Slovenian VPN won't help much if you're still accessing sites within the five eyes. You're still using HTTPS presumably.. the only thing VPNs would hide is what websites you visit, and if those are hosted in the US they can scoop up your traffic straight from the beam splitter.
The real danger is IC getting at the data in your accounts, which VPNs won't help with.
logging out... going offline. unplugging your computer from the internet ??
but then it is not so useful
you cannot verify your data is safe using a vpn
What is concerning about the UK is how apathetic the general public is to all this stuff. They have already accepted they need to opt into adult websites and continue to vote for authoritarian govt.
I don't think this is unique to the UK, it's just the UK is at the forefront overt public surveillance. CCTV has been extensive in the UK since the early 90s. Fighting crime with the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't need to worry" Orwellian attitude is generally accepted.
I agree with the second part of your comment, but the opt in for adult websites was dropped over fears it wouldn't be effective. [1]
Also, I don’t think this crosses people’s mind when they vote. The U.K. effectively once again has a two party system, and at the last two elections no real choice at all, given the complete lack of functioning opposition. Thinking wishfully perhaps, now the opposition has a reasonable leader again, politics should become about policy again.
>None of the agencies would be required to apply for warrants to access people’s internet connection data
This is misleading. All requests for any kind of Communications Data require authorisation [1] and need to outline necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion, including details of less intrusive means already tried. This is a similar process to the warrant application process - the difference is that a Warrant is authorised by the Secretary of State (the Home Secretary) whereas the CD authorisation is granted by the Investigatory Powers commissioner - previously Sir Adrian Fulford and currently Lord Justice Levison.
To say that any agency can get without a warrant is misleading. Also, none of the agencies cited (Food Standards Agency, Gambling Commission and NHS Business Services Authority) will have the authority to request to ICRs [3].
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-commu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Leveson
[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/62/enac...
Who do you represent?
The "warrants" offered by the IPA are meaningless and undeserving of the name, given that they're issued by the Secretary of State and not a court. The "judicial commissioner" process is equally farcical, since it basically just ensures the SoS filled out the paperwork correctly.
What is notably absent from any of this is a judge making any finding of evidential basis for warrant issuance, which is supposed to be the very premise of a warrant.
For a particularly amusing example of this, consider the fact that the new UK-USA CLOUD Act cooperation forced the UK to create a new kind of warrant which, unlike all other IP warrants in the UK, requires the involvement of an actual judge. I guess the US looked at the UK's notion of a "warrant" and was having none of it. Ironically, this means the UK is actually holding itself to a higher standard when asking other countries for data than when doing so domestically.
The requirement for "proportionality" is equally farcical. This is, as I understand it, a result of the ECHR striking down previous legislation on the grounds that it is not "proportional". The UK's "solution" to this is, AIUI, to add a line to the law saying "any usage must be proportional". It says it has to be proportional, thus it's proportional, right?
A judge doesn't make an evidential finding when issuing a warrant, they don't study the evidence at all. In fact no evidence is presented. The officer swears that the factual basis for the application is true. The court is there to check necessity and proportionality on the assumption the officer's sworn application is true.
Edit: I'm sure they retain the right to inspect the evidence if they want to
I too would like to know who you represent, randomly generated ID as a username signed up 53 minutes ago, and in favor of the new spying legislation.
Speaks for itself I think.
There isn't a reasonable argument that will change this. Hate to say it, but you just have to recognize the people who advocate it and socially isolate them. While the police became militarized, the public service have became a cluster of policing agencies, but without any of the limitations of powers or the accountability.
The Register, as they usually do, have chosen to put the most sensationalist slant on this possible.
"communications data" does not mean the content of the message. Communications data is strictly about the meta-data. None of these organisations are given access to the content of messages.
And intercepts (the actual contents of the messages) are inadmissible in court.
Does anyone know of a co-ordinated political opposition to RIPA, and how to support it?
I'm not normally a libertarian but... There is nothing quite so permanent as temporary government powers.
This is true; the UK has suffered under "temporary" austerity measures for over a decade now as well, in practice it means the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, while the health care system is underfunded culminating now in a pandemic for which they don't have the means to handle.
It's been a short-term cost-cutting measure that is now basically killing people and damaging the economy, on top of what Brexit already cost them.
But hey, a handful of people made a bit of money off of it, it was totally worth it.
> This is true; the UK has suffered under "temporary" austerity measures for over a decade now as well, in practice it means the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, while the health care system is underfunded culminating now in a pandemic for which they don't have the means to handle
Laughable number of mischaracterisations in there. Focused entirely on oft repeated spurious memetically distributed fake news items. Which no doubt you would Google and paste to support your assertions.
Political hatchery 101
Full steam ahead to a brave new world.
No guessing involved either thanks to China
Good thing this is being tried first in a nation that is pretty much guaranteed to sit and take it.
What country wouldn't though? I mean, take the US which literally allows people to have guns to rise up against the government, but they don't because they're too busy spreading their attention between the three jobs they need to make ends meet and pay off their student loan / medical bills and the ten streaming services or 24 hour news networks that demand what little remains of their attention.
didn't realise you represented the entirety of the UK. those who wish to remain anonymous will always find a way to do so. those who don't mind herd security / crowdsourced policing will continue not to mind