Theresa May to control "new internet" controlled and regulated by Government

[Ghaleon]

She is becoming the real world Chancellor Sutler. Soon she will start saying, "Strength through unity, unity through faith".

[DaGhostDS]

She is becoming the real world Chancellor Sutler. Soon she will start saying, "Strength through unity, unity through faith".

Kinda but with less Gay imprisoning/execution since she backed gay-marriage in the UK though, which is weird for someone that think Porn is evil but heh.

[Activi-T]

Kinda but with less Gay imprisoning/execution since she backed gay-marriage in the UK though, which is weird for someone that think Porn is evil but heh.

It's almost like the PM doesn't sit at a desk and write the manifesto herself. It's almost like it's cobbled together from various places to try and keep as many politicians/core voters onside as possible. Like with most laws that try and keep up with modern technology it'll die on its arse in committee stage.

[Deleted]

The nazi pug quip was aimed at me as I'm Scottish. I can only guess the nazi pug invaded his safe space.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...peech-nazi-pug
There's the nazi pug thing if you're behind the times. I could have picked a few other examples.

- - - Updated - - -

You have no proof that this would be the current outcome under Cameron, i don't simply take over your assumptions.

There is a stronger argument for my point than yours. Her position in camerons government dealt with this area as her job and it is the direction the state is going in regardless of party.

[Mormolyce]

How simple of you to assume it wasn't the same when the other party were in power and it's ridiculous people are trying to bring brexit into this when it's got very little do with it.

I dunno, maybe because it's being enacted by the government that brought you Brexit, by the woman who's taken up the mantle of Brexit. Also by the same party that introduced sweeping surveillance laws that were ruled illegal by the EU and is currently working to get around that.

https://www.ft.com/content/ee3adeb0-...5-9e5580d6e5fb

Seems fucking relevant.

[Deleted]

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.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The USA : Lets get rid of net neutrality, the people will love it!
The UK : Hold my beer.




HueHueHueHueHue

I have to admit, I had a good laugh.

Sadly, because it's true.

[Deleted]

The USA : Lets get rid of net neutrality, the people will love it!
The UK : Hold my beer.




HueHueHueHueHue

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!)

[Aeula]

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.

[Mormolyce]

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.

https://l2b.thelawyer.com/surveillan...ry-powers-act/

There's also this:

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...e-laws-illegal

[Deleted]

Yeah sure, "to manage the terrorists". It's not like you couldn't go for the more effective methods in the first place.

[Deleted]

Please do. Im sure i could learn much from your views on Scotland.

You mean facts not views. It's not like I'm some kind of wizard who thinks up something mad about Scotland and have it magically become true.

A sizeable part of Chairman May's job was to decrease the number of immigrants to the 10s of thousands as per the Tory party 2010 manifesto promise. She spent 6 or so years as Home Secretary achieving that Tory promise and yet immigration numbers increased under her watch. You'll never guess what the Tories have promised in their 2017 manifesto, yip its to reduce immigration to the 10s of thousands. Arguably the very issue that tipped the balance in the brexit ref, immigration, and the Tory government are still selling that same bullshit. Chairman May was little short of an incompetent as Home Secretary, yet here we brits are facing the likelihood of a strong Tory majority lead by such an incompetent.

Yet still put through the measures we're discussing. Labour put through similar laws when they were in power.

- - - Updated - - -

That's weird, it wasn't putting up the paywall yesterday.

I think this is the same article?


https://l2b.thelawyer.com/surveillan...ry-powers-act/

There's also this:

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...e-laws-illegal

So now they're getting around it like any other challenges from Europe that they don't like.
Looking on the brightside you won't have them affecting the rest of the EU with this directly.

[Grimbold21]

So internet control disguised as babysitting of the public?

Hell, screw it, that ain't disguised as anything.

[Mormolyce]

So now they're getting around it like any other challenges from Europe that they don't like.
Looking on the brightside you won't have them affecting the rest of the EU with this directly.

Almost seems like their EU deal was pretty sweet, all the benefits and heaps of special privileges. Good thing they're getting rid of it. Rule Britannia!

[Graeham]

Not a fan of the idea. Where is the line going to be drawn? What's to stop them doing something super dumb like banning access to MMO's because they 'can't be regulated'?

[Danner]

How about we move the entire internet to the Nordic countries? We seem to have sensible laws here up north.

I wish.

Norwegian political parties are pretty much in agreement on everything. I mean, they all have their little quirks - the conservatives want to put all the oil money towards tax cuts for the ultra rich. The nationalist right wingers party want all the racist things, without really saying it out loud. The environmentalists want to ban cars. The christian fundamentalists want to replace our laws with the old testament. The labour party want to be in power for the sake of it. The farmer party want farmer things. The radical left party used to be against everything, but stopped with that after the last election and thus lost all support as well. And the liberal party simply want to make a riot. I'm exaggerating only ever so slightly. But ultimately these partial all want the same thing. They all are in favour of things, and they all dislike other things. And those things tend to be exactly the same things. 90% of their policies are in alignment. And that's generally a good thing, because those policies reflect the Norwegian desires.

But not always.

On the topic of the internet, it seems a select few people are calling the shots, disregarding the grass roots of the parties that formed them. This was never clearer than when EU drafted the Data Retention Directive. In short, this EU directive mandates that all EU ISPs must store all internet activity for at least 6 months, maximum 24 months.

This is not a popular idea in Norway. We had some experiences with political mass surveillance in the previous century, and the appetite to do mass surveillance just isn't there in my country. The consensus is that if you're under some specific suspicion, get a court order and set up surveillance then - nobody will oppose that happening. Otherwise, the government should keep its hands off the private sphere!

The Prime Minister had other concerns. Or pressures. Nobody knows. He decided it was to be implemented anyway. He required all his party's representatives to vote in favour, or they would be ousted from the party. Despite overwhelming opposition in his own party, the directive passed under that threat. As the first country in Europe to implement it. This act was justified by the PM as "we have to implement EU regulations" (note: Norway is not a member of the EU). Six months later, his own party drafted a new party program, with a bullet to reject the next EU directive that came along, just as a way to tell him to fuck off with that kind of nonsense. I do not know who pulled the PM's strings. I suspect foreign pressure. That PM is now the head honcho of NATO.

Nonetheless, the law stands. Nobody else in EU wanted to implement it. For the longest time it looked like Norway would be the only country to do so. Then the London bombs happened, and suddenly the starch opposition in the EU region turned to support. The law was passed - mostly. Sweden and Austria refused, and were later pressured into adding it anyway. Several other countries passed it with heavy modifications. We all know how it all turned out, courtesy of Snowden. And it's not like terrorism stopped. So what did we really gain?

Nowadays, the talks are about whether Norway should have a Great Firewall of Norway, per the chinese model. The same people who praised the Data Retention Directive is now praising this proposal. Several other countries are talking the same talk. Catching terrorists is still the excuse. I fully expect that in 10 years, we will have one of those. Probably in the form of an EU directive. And I have no faith that anyone in Norway has any say in the matter. Whomever influenced the PM last time, will do so again.

So sadly, do not look to the Nordic countries as some sort of bastion of internet freedom. Because we're not in charge of our own laws on this topic.

[Xarkan]

On the topic of the internet, it seems a select few people are calling the shots, disregarding the grass roots of the parties that formed them. This was never clearer than when EU drafted the Data Retention Directive. In short, this EU directive mandates that all EU ISPs must store all internet activity for at least 6 months, maximum 24 months.

Mandated you mean? It was supposedly annulled in 2014 for violating amongst other things the EU charter on fundamental rights.. or so it seems to me

[Danner]

Mandated you mean? It was supposedly annulled in 2014 for violating amongst other things the EU charter on fundamental rights.. or so it seems to me

Huh. I had completely forgot that happened. But you are quite right.

That means I must amend something in my post. The reveals from snowden was NOT this directive, clearly, just something resembling it heavily.

My point about norway not owning its own laws stand. Though I really wish to be wrong.