Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ...
  1. #101
    The Unstoppable Force Peggle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Southwark, London
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrak View Post
    The USA : Lets get rid of net neutrality, the people will love it!
    The UK : Hold my beer.

    Yep, the last year has been the USA and the UK trying to outdo each other in bad decisions :P

    Im not really sure who's winning (if winning is even possible in that game!)
    Need new signature ideas

  2. #102
    One thing to note is that she's targeting companies, meaning if she twists their arm enough these stupid ideas of hers could end up being enforced world wide.

    It wouldn't be the first time my country has tried fucking up the internet for everybody. IIRC they made google do a crackdown recently (Under David Cameron) that affected everyone.

    Corbyn seems to like the idea too, so it's not like we can just vote her out of office and it'll all go away.
    My Game of the year 2016: Enderal <-- Seriously, play this game. It's the best thing 2016 produced.
    Most Hyped Games/DLC 2017: Enderal:Forgotten Stories, Elder Scrolls Online: Morrowind (June 6th).

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Genadius View Post
    Actually, according to today's information, the cut's getting closer. I'd still like to see a debate between Corbyn and May, but I don't think that'd happen. If it does, I'm stocking up on Buckfast.

    @Mormolyce, any chance you can give some excerpt from that paper? I'm not subbed to FT, sadly, and that sounds like a good read.

    And on the topic of May's incompetence - She assigned Boris Johnson as the Foreign Secretary. That alone should be enough to challenge any competence on any matter.
    That's weird, it wasn't putting up the paywall yesterday.

    I think this is the same article?

    Amber Rudd, the UK’s home secretary, will ask her colleagues across the EU to help her find loopholes in a ruling from the European Court of Justice that declared British surveillance laws to be illegal.

    Ms Rudd will warn other EU interior ministers at a Justice and Home Affairs meeting on Thursday that a limit on UK policing and intelligence powers could result in more cross-border crime around Europe, particularly terrorism.

    What’s the background to this story?
    The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), also known as “the Snoopers’ Charter”, is a recent law that principally gives wide-ranging surveillance powers to the UK Government and public authorities.

    Under the IPA, communications service providers (such as telephone companies) must retain communications data (e.g. records of phone calls) for up to 12 months, when requested to do so by notice.

    For the first time ever, the IPA also requires the collection and retention of records of internet services that have been accessed by a device. Importantly, various public authorities, including the police, HMRC, and the Gambling Commission, are given the right to access this data, in many cases without a warrant.

    Unsurprisingly, these provisions have been widely criticised by privacy advocates, academics, and even telecoms companies.

    The IPA consolidates existing legislation such as the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA), which was repealed at the end of 2016, but also extends existing requirements in certain places.

    In 2015, two UK MPs asked the European Court of Justice (CJEU) to consider whether DRIPA was compliant with EU law, and in December 2016, the CJEU ruled that the legislation was illegal because it allowed the “general and indiscriminate” retention of electronic communications, in breach of the E-Privacy Directive (2002/58/EC), and when read in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. EU law only permits the “targeted retention of data” and only to the extent “strictly necessary”.

    Further, the access of national authorities to the retained data must be subject to conditions, including prior review by an independent authority and the data being retained in the EU. The only objective that is capable of justifying interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and protection of personal data is fighting “serious crime”.

    The CJEU judgment was handed down after the IPA received Royal Assent. Although the ruling was determined in the context of DRIPA, its application is likely to be broader and, given the similarities with the IPA, it is thought that the CJEU guidance will apply to certain IPA provisions as well.

    What are the wider implications of the IPA?
    The main source of criticism has been around the requirements for bulk retention of data and the ability of public authorities to access that data. Human rights campaign groups consider that the IPA is not only an assault on the right to privacy, but also free speech and press freedom, as it significantly reduces the protection of journalists and their sources.

    In fact, civil liberties advocacy group, Liberty, has recently launched a crowdfunded legal challenge against the Act, seeking a judicial review of the core bulk powers in the new legislation.

    The IPA also gives rise to security-related concerns because it could require technology companies to create backdoors (e.g. through forced decryption) to give the government access to data and tech giants like Apple have warned that this would weaken security systems. Twinned with the bulk collection of data in multiple centralised databases, this creates a tempting target for hackers wishing to gain access to the information store.

    Further, international companies are concerned about the extraterritorial applicability of the law. The IPA could potentially apply to non-UK operators that provide telecommunications services to people in the UK and certain powers also expressly apply to non-UK persons.

    Negotiations will need to take place in parallel, especially in light of Brexit, to agree cross-border arrangements that prevent an international company from breaching its own national laws. In the meantime, the IPA is creating an additional source of uncertainty for foreign companies operating in the UK.

    What is the Home Secretary seeking to do and will she succeed?
    The Home Secretary is now hoping to align with those EU countries that have been particularly anxious about terrorism, such as Belgium, France and Spain, in order to find a legal loophole that would enable the UK to keep the IPA in its current format. More broadly, the Home Secretary is also seeking to clarify how far the government’s surveillance powers can go post-Brexit.

    While member states acknowledge the UK’s important role in European security matters, inevitably, the UK’s vote to leave the EU has pushed away potential allies. Therefore, aside from having the difficult task of building strong legal arguments for maintaining extensive monitoring powers, the government will also face the added challenge of finding partners which will support its efforts to challenge the CJEU’s ruling.

    What will happen next?
    The UK is now under pressure to re-consider aspects of the IPA. The Court of Appeal has been tasked with determining how the CJEU’s ruling should be interpreted in domestic legislation and the government has stated that it does not intend to modify the IPA before the judgment is published in the next few months.

    There's also this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  4. #104
    Yeah sure, "to manage the terrorists". It's not like you couldn't go for the more effective methods in the first place.
    "The Right always wins. The Left just imports a foreign Right." -Blayze

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You are the one who wants to prevent crime, not me.
    (Talking about Based Slant slamming him on ethics)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts