Britons: You Have 72 Hours to Stop the Snooper's Charter

https://www.eff.org//deeplinks/2015/01/britons-you-have-72-hours-stop-snoopers-charter

by sinak • 12 years ago

700 105 12 years ago

eff.org

lifeisstillgood3• 12 years ago

Well I am drunk, so my ex Deputy PM gets the alcohol version of constituency letters

Attn: Lord Prescott House of Lords

Saturday 24 January 2015

Paul R Brian 18 Regent Way Kings Hill Kent ME19 4EB

Paul@mikadosoftware.com 07540456115

Dear Lord Prescott,

On Monday you have the opportunity to oppose a bill forcing ISPs to hold excessive amounts of private information in the hope some will be useful in the fight against crime and political crime.

This information may indeed be useful, but allowing only police and intelligence services to access it steps down the wrong path.

Please consider opposing this bill until sufficient steps can be put in place to allow full and unfettered access to everyone's data - by everyone.

A kingdom of the blind policed by the sighted is not free. A kingdom where all have eyes is equal, and can strive towards free.

Yours sincerely,

Paul R Brian

kordless3• 12 years ago

Assume I live in a rather secure hole underground, by myself. There are very few things I can do, short of connecting to the outside world and interacting with something in an illegal manner, that can constitute a crime. Maybe I build something that can harm someone remotely, but that requires intent to do something to interact with the outside world, so I'm discounting that here. I'm talking about doing something in my own hole, by myself, with no intent of leaving or interacting with anyone else.

Should the data that constitutes my actions be available to 'everyone'? I argue it does not. It's not your data. It's my data.

Now if I decide to leave my hole and go out into the world and interact with others, things get more complicated. If there is an opportunity where my information becomes entangled with others, I'm all for sharing it with everyone, with one caveat. I'd like to know who accessed my data, and if they accessed it simultaneously with other people's data, I'd like to know their data as well. I'm down with charging for it as well. Keeps the costs of doing surveillance on everyone high.

BTW, I'm well aware of the dilemma you are attempting to put your Lord into here. I just don't think it's that easy to dispel.

estel2• 12 years ago

I like the idea of Prezza being lifeisstillgood's own Lord

lifeisstillgood3• 12 years ago

I'm up for charging for personal data, for making entangled data available and many other options - what I don't see is a binary choice between "we need access to everyone's data to catch the bad guys" and "liberty means anonymity"

Neither seem correct in our new world, and one of the many problems with this salvo in the "2nd crypto war" is it assumes the fight is on those grounds.

I think that means I am agreeing with you.

Do you get cable in your hole? It sounds like a nice place to retreat to :-)

isaacwaller2• 12 years ago

What a ridiculous clickbait headline from the EFF. The truth is buried 7 paragraphs down:

The amendments announced on Thursday will be formally included into the bill on Monday, in a committee meeting that was not planned to include a vote. The Lords will then have two more minor opportunities to debate the content of the bill before it is passed onto the elected House of Commons in its entirety for what is expected to be a simple up/down vote. Britain's members of parliament are currently distracted as they prepare for nationwide elections in May, which means it is highly likely that a major anti-terrorism bill like this will collect enough votes to pass.

hanoz• 12 years ago

Your cited "buried truth" is more alarming than the headline.

estel2• 12 years ago

Why's that more alarming? "72 hours to stop the bill" is pretty alarming, but with the bill still in committee, there's still a a little longer for it to go yet. The third reading is scheduled in a fortnight.

kordless3• 12 years ago

Learn your terms before you lay blame. Clickbait is used to drive ad revenue.

bluehex• 12 years ago

I don't agree with the narrow definition of clickbait. I think any sensationalism in headline, for sake of gaining clicks and attention, can be considered clickbait. I saw Wikipedia also proclaims the same relation to ad revenue; I just disagree that it's the only interpretation as people have been using the term more broadly for a while now even if it's origins are of the online advertising world.

In this case, I wouldn't categorize the headline as sensationalist though, considering that it's accurate and the next 72 hours are actually important.

btown• 12 years ago

If it's anything like the US system, the time to stop an amendment is before it becomes part of a Christmas-tree bill, rather than after. So I don't think this is burying the truth at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree_bill

davidgay• 12 years ago

The use of "Britons" sounds tone deaf to me, and hence a rather bad choice given that they presumably actually want to stop this (British, but more confused than anything).

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/engl...

nitrogen• 12 years ago

The definition you linked doesn't seem to support your claim. I have no connection to the EFF, but I'm curious what a better word would be for a short call to action.

jckt• 12 years ago

http://grammarist.com/usage/briton/

This link supports the opposite of davidgay's comment (sources within).

dannyobrien4• 12 years ago

I wrote the headline; I'm British. It's always a little awkward to pick a term here, as we don't usually like to refer to ourselves at all much. "Brits" was too informal for this. UK citizens would have sounded a bit too Airstrip One. Britons has a nice newspaperly ring, but I agree with you that it is potentially a little corny, so I believe we only use it for this particular page.

I also have to deal with the trickiness that the text has to simultaneously address UK people wanting to take action, and explain the action to curious people outside of the UK.

For instance, the main action uses different language:

https://act.eff.org/action/tell-britain-s-lords-don-t-let-th...

yellowapple• 12 years ago

UK citizens would have sounded a bit too Airstrip One

Which probably would have been fitting in this context.

ch215• 12 years ago

I'm nitpicking, I know, but "act" ought to be amended "bill" in the third paragraph. Apologies for being such a pedant.

sourceless2• 12 years ago

Briton is the correct demonym for a citizen of the United Kingdom[0]. Britons is the preferred way to speak about all residents of the British Isles without having to use a qualifier, e.g. British people, People of Britain.

Compare Finland, Denmark, Scotland.

[0] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adjectival_and_demony... [1] I'm a British Citizen

aDevilInMe• 12 years ago

This is news to me and I have a problem with the term as it does not include citizens of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of The UK(Great Britain and NI), yet not part of Great Britain(England, Scotland and Wales) or Britain(England and Wales). The Irish, amongst others, do not refer to the islands as the British Isles due to the association with Britain.[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles#cite_note-postwar...

nl• 12 years ago

It's pretty commonly used: https://www.google.com.au/webhp?ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Brit...

jsnathan• 12 years ago

Strong guarantees of privacy are essential to enable political dissent. Without it, opinions opposed to the prevailing majority view point are not only side-lined, but the very expression of an interest in them becomes a cause for controversy and social rebuke.

Without privacy individuals are unable to explore, consider and evaluate diverging ideals, and eventually reach new personal convictions which may in time turn the tide against the status quo. Instead, the fermentation of ideas is cut short, as most people are unable to stand the push-back inflicted on them by society at an early stage in their thought-process, leading to self-censorship and group-think.

Society incurs much more damage from so many angles, ranging from murders to car accidents to diseases, that it does not need to jump in such abject terror at the thought of political violence - still a comparatively rare occurence in most places on this earth - so as to trample on the very foundation of every democracy:

Which is the freedom of the individual in his own thoughts, to form his own personal opinions unimpeded by institutionalised social pressure.

The mass-scale erosion of privacy must be stopped before it is too late to reverse the trend.

olefoo• 12 years ago

I would like to be optimistic, but I fear we are caught in the pull of a stable orbit in the political system. Plutocracy and Surveillance go hand in hand, and the more government falls to those who can afford it; the more surveillance there will be as the oligarchs attempt to defend their theft.

happyscrappy• 12 years ago

If the people cared about this it could be stopped, but they don't care. Hell they think it is a swell idea to jail people for offensive tweets.

lmorris843• 12 years ago

Without it, opinions opposed to the prevailing majority view point are not only side-lined, but the very expression of an interest in them becomes a cause for controversy and social rebuke.

I think in many ways we're already there, but it's society as a whole causing this rather than government(s) specifically.

Heaven forbid you have an opinion on (for example) gay marriage if that opinion is anything BUT full throated support. Look at what happened to Brendan Eich.

We definitely need to resist government oversight, but the problem is much bigger than that IMHO.

diyorgasms• 12 years ago

While you should be allowed to express whatever viewpoint you have regarding gay marriage, I have yet to see an argument against which is not rooted in bigotry.

Is your argument that people should be allowed to spew bigoted and hateful nonsense without facing any social repercussion whatsoever?

TeMPOraL• 12 years ago

Problems are connected, but still separate. I agree Social Justice Warriors are a cancer on society, but this kind of government actions is like getting attacked and cut by a knife. Sure, the cancer might make everything go to hell eventually, but the knife wound needs to be patched up now, before we bleed out of our freedom of though.

Zigurd• 12 years ago

Look at what happened to Brendan Eich.

That is different from, for example, what happened to the Occupy movement. Brendan Eich was not investigated by the FBI, nor was he wiretapped, nor was a confidential informant sent to tempt him into an illegal act.

If Brendan Eich's views on gays having the freedom to marry were not opposed by a large number of people relevant to his leadership position at Mozilla, and if Mozilla did not have a corporate culture that was overtly welcoming to LGBT individuals, it would not have mattered. In fact it demonstrably did not matter until Brendan Eich came into a leadership position where he could change Mozilla's culture.

A surveillance state, on the other hand, is devoted to preserving itself at the expense of everyone and anyone else. That's not the same thing.

enraged_camel• 12 years ago

There's a difference between being socially rebuked for stating an unpopular opinion (which is what happened to Eich), and being followed and threatened by the FBI, wiretapped, put on a no-fly list, or imprisoned.

adunn• 12 years ago

"...but it's society as a whole causing this rather than government(s) specifically"

It sounds like you are claiming that state surveillance is actually a subset of social pressure surrounding what's socially acceptable behavior. You claim the latter to be a bigger and more serious problem. Perhaps you did not mean to claim that, but that is how it sounds.

Socially acceptable behavior is always changing as generations come and go.

For everyone's well-being, governments must always trend away from oppression, not toward.

Whatever you think about equality issues, surely we can agree that these things are not really the same, and government oppression certainly is not a subset of social norm issues.

nthcolumn2• 12 years ago

Zuck was right. Privacy is dead. There is no such thing anymore. No true democracy without a free vote. In the EU, we have to click 'agree to cookies' on every site whilst every newborn's DNA is stored digitally. They're mocking us. It is irreversible. The genie is out. It's over.

GunlogAlm• 12 years ago

every newborn's DNA is stored digitally

What?

bigphishy• 12 years ago

Can I ignore this user?

Taek• 12 years ago

This happens even when people do not realize it is happening to them. Self-censorship is not always a conscious process, and an increased ability to enforce the status quo means a decreased ability for people to even recognize that the status quo can be challenged.

Without privacy, marijuana legalization would not be anywhere close to where it is today. Womens suffrage would have taken decades further. The American Revolution would have been stamped out.

The ability to harbor unpopular opinions is essential to progress. And privacy is essential for that.

learnstats2• 12 years ago

Strong guarantees of privacy are essential to enable political dissent.

Sure.

The established political class - in particular, the UK House of Lords - might not find political dissent desirable.

Animats• 12 years ago

How did Lord Prescott, who used to be deputy prime minister and was a union activist, get behind this?

desas• 12 years ago

Lord Prescott did nothing as deputy PM to prevent New Labour from introducing authoritan legislation.

justincormack• 12 years ago

The Labour party has a highly authoritarian wing. Possibly even a majority, it is certainly mainstream there. That is one of the reasons behind growing support for other parties, previously the Lib Dems, now the Greens, among former Labour voters.

Htsthbjig• 12 years ago

So why the eff does not employ a person that talks to a camera and makes a video over this?

Most people don't read(0). So your message is not heard.

(0)No judging about it, just stating a fact.

Cakez0r• 12 years ago

Outrageous claim(0)

(0)This is a fact

EliRivers• 12 years ago

Outrageous claim(0)

Outrageous it may be, but is it true?

drdaeman• 12 years ago

No idea about most people, but I don't watch videos and always look for transcript. Had seen others doing the same, but, once again, no idea how common this is. If you have seen any research - would appreciate if you'd link to one.

Videos are slow. I can review a page of text in less than a minute. Watching the video for a same amount of information would take me much more than this, and rewinding back if some reference's unclear is a PITA.

sschueller• 12 years ago

Does this in any way clash with EU law?

pjc50• 12 years ago

The ECJ ruled the Data Retention Directive unlawful recently. However even if this is an article 8 violation that may take a while to have an effect (see the prisoner votes fiasco)

M2Ys4U• 12 years ago

The prisoner votes situation is completely different - that's nothing to do with EU law.

timthorn• 12 years ago

Probably arguable, but according to Article 4 (2) of the Lisbon Treaty:

[The EU] shall respect [Member States] essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.

The UK could insist that this is a national security measure.

andrewaylett• 12 years ago

And all of the MySociety sites appear to be down! For "maintenance". Coincidence? Conspiracy? How do I talk to my (elected or otherwise) representatives now?

(Yes, it was planned: https://twitter.com/mysociety/status/558591332374310913)

MarcScott• 12 years ago

You can tweet them.

https://act.eff.org/action/tell-britain-s-lords-don-t-let-th...

sambenson• 12 years ago

According to Lord Bassam, Monday is the committee stage and they won't be voting...

https://twitter.com/SteveTheQuip/status/558951743913226240

AlyssaRowan• 12 years ago

It does mean they can take the amendments back out.

Parliament previously rejected this after debate, so it's simply improper for it to be added to something else in the Lords. This "riders" trick is highly frowned upon here as an abuse of protocol.

If it's ever to be raised again like the highly controversial zombie legislation it is, it needs to be raised in the next session of the Commons, after the next General Election (e.g. Cameron probably would, along with his "let's ban encryption" muppetry). And the Lib Dems will probably oppose it again, as would the Greens and Pirate Party, should they hold any sway.

Even the Information Commissioner has strongly warned against the consequences of knee-jerk reactions in surveillance/privacy-impacting legislation like this.

PythonicAlpha• 12 years ago

It seems, in some countries, people are just waiting for the next terrorist act to bring out new ways to undermine the principles of democracy.

Without privacy and the possibility to express one self without fear, democracy is not possible. We create monstrous systems that become bigger and bigger and destroy democracy from within.

KaiserPro• 12 years ago

Don't use twitter, its easily dismissed. Use https://www.writetothem.com/ its far more effective to express reasoned though in a message >140 chars.

dazbradbury• 12 years ago

Not my post, but a comment that potentially explains what's happening here and provides an interesting viewpoint:

"I am a former parliamentary assistant with experience working on complex and controversial legislation. I do not think this is a bona fide attempt to pass the amendments.

1. Generally, the government lays amendments it actually wants to pass in the name of the minister leading on the bill. In this instance that's Lord Bates. He's put lots of other amendments on the list[1] but not this one.

2. In bill committees, MPs and peers often table amendments that they are not trying to pass. They do this to secure debating time, argue about the principles, and occasionally extract commitments from the government. They get the chance to make speeches and then withdraw the amendments without them ever going to a vote. I suspect the four peers who tabled this are trying to kick start a cross-bench movement in favour of stronger security laws. They'll use their chance to make speeches and then withdraw their amendment. (EDIT: They have since made clear that this is an earnest attempt to legalise the powers but as noted above, they are raising this without any co-operation with the government. Source[2].)

3. Even if this is a genuine attempt to insert this language, it is a highly irregular way to go about it and I would bet against it surviving a vote. Peers are very aware of the role they play in making legislation and they know they aren't supposed to ram in controversial language like this. It's for the elected members in the Commons, who have the democratic mandate, to make the crucial decisions and for the Lords to focus on technical elements. This would not go down well. In the Lords, the whole House votes at Committee stage. This means hundreds of peers, who are independently minded and relatively difficult to whip, would get to express their view. I would not expect them to let this by.

4. Even if it survived the committee, the Bill needs to go back to the Commons, in a process known as "ping pong". The new clauses would almost certainly be defeated by MPs because the Lib Dems would be whipped against it[3], depriving the government of its majority, and Labour has already said it won't support it either[4]. The numbers just aren't there. I am not close to this issue and could not tell you what they are trying to do. This is all guess work. But it really does not look like a genuine attempt by the government, and I wouldn't say it stands much of a chance."

Sources:

Post: http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/2te41m/lords_...

[1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-20...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/22/snoopers-char...

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30870442

[4] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/ed-miliband-sno...

dannyobrien4• 12 years ago

(I also replied to this on Reddit -- essentially, I agree that this isn't a government-sponsored amendment, but would argue that it is a sincere attempt to pass the amendments, conducted in the hope that the post-Charlie Hebdo atmosphere was sufficient to wave through the Comms Data Bill. I don't think the government wanted their fingers on it, but if it had received no reaction or support, they wouldn't have fought it hard either.)

jheriko• 11 years ago

There is sadly a much bigger problem when people can not stop widely unpopular legislation from coming to fruition.

Representative democracy is not always democracy... even with an election looming.

Britons: You Have 72 Hours to Stop the Snooper's Charter

Related Stories