New monitoring powers 'to tackle terrorism' proposed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32896921

by jsingleton • 11 years ago

68 32 11 years ago

bbc.co.uk

It seems like this is proposed in the same way the Patriot Act was proposed to the public. "We need this to go after those suspected of terrorism". Yet the bill allowed them to intercept data of many more people and not just for terrorism, but drug crimes and so on.

If what they really need is to go after "suspected terrorists", then all they should need is a warrant from a judge. But of course this bill is not about that. It's about spying on everyone, and about censoring "extremist speech" (I assume the government gets to decide what is extremist, too, and not a judge?).

Checks and balances are supposed to exist for a reason. We've played this game before giving governments total power to "do stuff", including "protecting us", "improve the economy", "national security", whatever. It doesn't end well for the population. In fact, it ends exponentially worse than any "threat" mentioned when the government asks for such powers, for every single person, not just those "who have something to hide" or are "extremist".

hahainternet2• 11 years ago

This was proposed many years ago but blocked by the Lib Dems. Now the people of the UK destroyed the Lib Dems, there's nobody to oppose this.

A lesson in picking the lesser of evils. Nobody will learn it though, and the UK is screwed for the forseeable future.

qrmn• 11 years ago

Not many years ago - just 3!

The Tories have a slimmer majority now than they had in the coalition, and a Lords which isn't all roses and flowers about this. And the Lib Dems (in one of the few promises they actually kept) sent the Draft Communications Data Bill rejected last time over to an independent parliamentary committee - which promptly savaged its drafting and lack of consultation, amongst other things: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/...

If the Tories come back with the same draft or worse, it will have a very hard time.

I've written to my MP already - and got a copy-pasted bit of Tory party manifesto back, which indicates how much thought she's put into it so far I suppose - but it does at least contain a paragraph about not wanting to propose sweeping mass surveillance legislation obviously, which this in fact is, so I'm going to reply again when I have sight of the draft to pick out the specific problems. I can at least try to get her to read it and reflect my concerns.

alextgordon• 11 years ago

The Lib Dems were destroyed because their core vote hated them. A lesson in not double-crossing your core vote.

Edit: Apparently the Lib Dems are universally loved, and never did anything wrong. I retract my statement.

madaxe_again• 11 years ago

This is about "combatting online terror" in the same way that reducing the benefits cap is about "helping working people".

Newspeak and doublethink abound.

kropotkinlives4• 11 years ago

Those two points are 100% factual.

The benefits cap reduction paid for people who are working to have their personal tax-free allowance raised and decreased the reward for not working ergo they are helping working people by providing tax relief as a reward. This just isn't the same "helping working people" soundbite that the vocal minority of media and population are annoyed about however which is where the disparity arises.

They are ramping up surveillance with the intention of combating online terror. But there probably isn't anything much going on, but they're still doing it so they can be seen to be doing it.

Now I don't necessarily agree with the situation, would personally smash the state in a second, nationalise all industry and live as a strong fisted respectable worker under a common flag, singing Auferstanden aus Ruinen in a second but newspeak and doublethink it is not.

fweespeech4• 11 years ago

They are ramping up surveillance with the intention of combating online terror. But there probably isn't anything much going on, but they're still doing it so they can be seen to be doing it.

The stated intention of combating online terror. However much like their ISP filtering, it was used for things other than the stated purpose within the first 6 months.

murbard22• 11 years ago

Nationalize? I believe you mean collectivize, but telling slip.

x5n1• 11 years ago

We need more control because of fear.

hellrich• 11 years ago

I thought it was more fear because control...

jsingleton• 11 years ago

Relevant: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/05/thoughtc... (previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9564281)

If you care about this sort of thing then please consider joining the ORG (https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/) and/or writing to your MP.

JupiterMoon2• 11 years ago

writing to your MP.

One of the few advantages of a fptp voting system is that MPs have a very real constituency link. If enough people write on issues like this then MPs have to either listen or accept that they are directly losing support. So please do write to them.

beedogs• 11 years ago

England has always been about five years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to authoritarian garbage like this. Look for these sorts of bills to be introduced in other places if it's successful there.

AC__• 11 years ago

All 5-eyes partner nations are passing egregious legislation such as this, these programs are being brought in under the guise of combating "terrorism" however are more designed to monitor and quell civil unrest and thwart would be dissidents.

Lawtonfogle• 11 years ago

Don't forget the chilling effect on free speech.

New monitoring powers 'to tackle terrorism' proposed

Related Stories