Britain has passed the 'most extreme surveillance law'

[Kalis]

Is he even alive still?

Unless the Ecuadorans (Ecuadorians?) have killed him, then presumably.

[Deleted]

Legislation designed to assist in investigating crime, will be available to senior members of bodies that investigate crimes after obtaining a warrant.

Though I still haven't worked out why ambulance or fire services might need it, as I presume the police investigate any criminal activities concerning them.

I had heard a proper warrant wasn't even needed.

So you can imagine how your information might be misused if your were in litigation against some of those organisations.

[Kaleredar]

There haven't been any terrorist attacks in Britain lately and good security is probably playing a role.

This is relevant:

I mean apart from some legal but strange Porn people might be into, what do Law abiding citizens have to hide?

What's that quote conservatives always try and dote out in these situations?

"Those that sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither?"


Where's that oft-maligned sentiment right about now? This is one of the few instances of it where I think it's actually applicable.

[Semune]

Hey, if you have nothing to hide why are you worried?

Just kidding, I've just been told this by anyone I've talked to about surveillance. It'll get to the point of no return (is it already there?) before people will do anything. Humanity is rather stupid as a collective entity.

The average IQ is 100, if you've ever taken an IQ test, 100 is likely obtainable by a monkey, and 120 should be the average, however our schools make people into dummy workers rather than critical thinkers. That's why, even in this thread, people are saying things to the extent of "if you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?", dummy workers.

[Kalis]

This is relevant:

Our security services stop terror attacks whilst they are in the planning stage, so it is not really relevant.

[Miztickow]

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...rn_spying.html

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone know approximately how much this will cost? When they tried this paranoia crap in Norway it was extremely expensive.

It sounds like the cost would be put on the ISPs, which would in turn move that cost onto internet users, unless the government put a subsidy into the law, which I highly doubt they did.

[Deleted]

And this is a problem, why? Law enforcement easily trumps 'privacy'.

I know quite a few people who'd have their fngers itching for a chance to deliberately misuse such laws. They wouldn't use it to search for terrorists or pedophiles, but to hunt down people with "islamophobic" opinions.

[Deleted]

And this is a problem, why? Law enforcement easily trumps 'privacy'.

Couldn't find the thumb down button.. wrong forum, bah!

No it doesn't! Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither

[Deleted]

Intriguingly Switzerland recently extended the powers of its Intelligence Services with exactly the 'one man, one vote' popular vote that everybody here seems to think is the only viable one. Being louder on the interwebs somehow doesn't necessarily indicate representing a majority.

[Mormolyce]

Intriguingly Switzerland recently extended the powers of its Intelligence Services with exactly the 'one man, one vote' popular vote that everybody here seems to think is the only viable one. Being louder on the interwebs somehow doesn't necessarily indicate representing a majority.

These kinds of laws get a lot of popular support. You just tell people that terrorists are trying to kill them and their kids are being groomed by online pedos and boom, you have a support base.

[Deleted]

You just tell people that terrorists are trying to kill them and their kids are being groomed by online pedos and boom, you have a support base.

That however only happened in your parallel universe, where unicorns frolic. Or got a source for that?

[Lady Dragonheart]

Something like that wouldn't bother me.

[Mormolyce]

That however only happened in your parallel universe, where unicorns frolic. Or got a source for that?

Source for what? That a support base exists for government regulation of the internet?

Here's one I guess.

Of the 31 percent of respondents who thought the government should regulate the Internet, more than two-thirds said the regulations should be focused on privacy, online safety and protecting children, Broadband for America said.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/206101/article.html

[Cthulhu 2020]

Id expect these kind of laws from a 3rd world country like Saudi Arabia, not the UK.
There was this movie called "V for Vendetta", how long till the UK is at that lvl? 10 years?

You forget, they just approved BREXIT. White nationalism has this tendency to bring its friend, "right wing authoritarianism" along for the ride.

[Kalis]

You forget, they just approved BREXIT. White nationalism has this tendency to bring its friend, "right wing authoritarianism" along for the ride.

White nationalism? What the fuck? Brexit wasn't about white nationalism.

And the people that brought this legislation in were mostly remain supporters.

[Deleted]

It was supported by both sides so try again.

[Deleted]

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...rn_spying.html

- - - Updated - - -



It sounds like the cost would be put on the ISPs, which would in turn move that cost onto internet users, unless the government put a subsidy into the law, which I highly doubt they did.

so basically my internet bill goes up cos of this law, so im paying to be spyed on well doesnt bother me i dnt download anything illegal

[Masark]

so basically my internet bill goes up cos of this law, so im paying to be spyed on well doesnt bother me i dnt download anything illegal

Just wait. They're busy defining "non-conventional" pornography.

[Deleted]

So these are the kind of freedoms the Britts were after?

[Deleted]

so its said they can view all your browsing history top URL's, is a top URL like wowhead.com but they can see if what page you have visited from wowhead.com, they just know you visited wowhead

- - - Updated - - -

It's not ratified yet. Bascially it looks like your ISP will store things like URLs you visited for up to a year, Not sure what else.

There haven't been any terrorist attacks in Britain lately and good security is probably playing a role.





http://www.zdnet.com/article/snooper...s-becomes-law/

Britain has passed the 'most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy'

The law forces UK internet providers to store browsing histories -- including domains visited -- for one year, in case of police investigations.

It's 2016 going on 1984.

The UK has just passed a massive expansion in surveillance powers, which critics have called "terrifying" and "dangerous".
More security news

The new law, dubbed the "snoopers' charter", was introduced by then-home secretary Theresa May in 2012, and took two attempts to get passed into law following breakdowns in the previous coalition government.

Four years and a general election later -- May is now prime minister -- the bill was finalized and passed on Wednesday by both parliamentary houses.

But civil liberties groups have long criticized the bill, with some arguing that the law will let the UK government "document everything we do online".

It's no wonder, because it basically does.

The law will force internet providers to record every internet customer's top-level web history in real-time for up to a year, which can be accessed by numerous government departments; force companies to decrypt data on demand -- though the government has never been that clear on exactly how it forces foreign firms to do that that; and even disclose any new security features in products before they launch.

Not only that, the law also gives the intelligence agencies the power to hack into computers and devices of citizens (known as equipment interference), although some protected professions -- such as journalists and medical staff -- are layered with marginally better protections.

Bandwidth Analyzer Pack: Your ONE network monitoring and traffic analysis tool

SolarWinds® Bandwidth Analyzer Pack streamlines troubleshooting and consolidates the multiple tools to simplify detection, diagnosis,and resolution. Download the free, fully functional 30-day trial of SolarWinds® Network Bandwidth Analyzer Pack now!
Downloads provided by SolarWinds

In other words, it's the "most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy," according to Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group.

The bill was opposed by representatives of the United Nations, all major UK and many leading global privacy and rights groups, and a host of Silicon Valley tech companies alike. Even the parliamentary committee tasked with scrutinizing the bill called some of its provisions "vague".

And that doesn't even account for the three-quarters of people who think privacy, which this law almost entirely erodes, is a human right.

There are some safeguards, however, such as a "double lock" system so that the secretary of state and an independent judicial commissioner must agree on a decision to carry out search warrants (though one member of the House of Lords disputed that claim).

A new investigatory powers commissioner will also oversee the use of the powers.

Despite the uproar, the government's opposition failed to scrutinize any significant amendments and abstained from the final vote. Killock said recently that the opposition Labour party spent its time "simply failing to hold the government to account".

But the government has downplayed much of the controversy surrounding the bill. The government has consistently argued that the bill isn't drastically new, but instead reworks the old and outdated Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). This was brought into law in 2000, to "legitimize" new powers that were conducted or ruled on in secret, like collecting data in bulk and hacking into networks, which was revealed during the Edward Snowden affair.

Much of those activities were only possible thanks to litigation by one advocacy group, Privacy International, which helped push these secret practices into the public domain while forcing the government to scramble to explain why these practices were legal.

The law will be ratified by royal assent in the coming weeks.

does the doamins visited just mean like wowhead.com etc just the top level domain