Email and Web use to be monitored under Tory proposals

[Infinite Chaos]

The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon.Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.
The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism, but civil liberties groups have criticised it.
Link

Just a few years after the conservatives and liberal democrats worked together in opposition to Jaqui Smith's plans to allow GCHQ to monitor all UK internet use, those two parties now in Govt are planning to introduce even more draconian measures in the next Queen's speech. Now the plan is to not even need legal footing for the Govt to allow the authorities
such surveillance.

I always liked David Davies however and he's gone up in my opinion in standing very firmly on the side of liberty and protection of individual rights - however, what on earth are the Lib Dems doing being part of such a proposal?

 

[gunner]

Just a few years after the conservatives and liberal democrats worked together in opposition to Jaqui Smith's plans to allow GCHQ to monitor all UK internet use, those two parties now in Govt are planning to introduce even more draconian measures in the next Queen's speech. Now the plan is to not even need legal footing for the Govt to allow the authorities
such surveillance.

I always liked David Davies however and he's gone up in my opinion in standing very firmly on the side of liberty and protection of individual rights - however, what on earth are the Lib Dems doing being part of such a proposal?

I think it's a cheap way (relatively, as a lot of automation is involved) to add another layer to the already 'big brother' society, that has become the UK. I agree, what are the likes of the Libdems behaving complicity in such policy? No doubt there will be an abundance of 'behind the scenes' expo-says once the coalition implodes.

Paul

 

[PeteEU]

Just a few years after the conservatives and liberal democrats worked together in opposition to Jaqui Smith's plans to allow GCHQ to monitor all UK internet use, those two parties now in Govt are planning to introduce even more draconian measures in the next Queen's speech. Now the plan is to not even need legal footing for the Govt to allow the authorities
such surveillance.

I always liked David Davies however and he's gone up in my opinion in standing very firmly on the side of liberty and protection of individual rights - however, what on earth are the Lib Dems doing being part of such a proposal?

So they want to make their own Echelon network scanner and make it legal?

First off... what is stopping them right now? No one.. chances are they are already doing it.
Secondly... the right seems more and more to be in the "lock up 100 people just to get one criminal" mode, and that is not only dangerous as hell but sad since it was supposedly the right that defended our freedoms and liberties against the evil left.. and now it is the left that is the poster boy for freedom and liberty... how things have changed since the late 1990s..

 

[HonestJoe]

So they want to make their own Echelon network scanner and make it legal?

Maybe they would want that, but this proposal is quite different.

First off... what is stopping them right now? No one.. chances are they are already doing it.

The service providers would probably stop them. This proposal is for government organisations to get access to data service providers are already obliged to keep for 12 months, without needing to get a warrant.

Secondly... the right seems more and more to be in the "lock up 100 people just to get one criminal" mode

On what basis do you say that in the context of this proposal? Warrant or not, nobody is going to go to the effort of getting and analysing this information if they don't already have some cause to suspect an individual.

since it was supposedly the right that defended our freedoms and liberties against the evil left

Maybe if you dropped the meaningless "left/right" rubbish and applied a little intelligence, you'd be better placed to understand the reality of the situation.

Please note that I've not said whether the proposal is good or bad, just what it actually is (I don't thin it can be honestly assessed without more details).

 

[PeteEU]

Maybe they would want that, but this proposal is quite different.

Actually it is not. They want to be able to listen in and read all electronic communications.. that is what Echelon already does for the US government. Problem is that, the UK does not have automatic access to that information, and that is what they want it.

Now in principle I have a problem with Echelon and Echelon type systems.. not that I have anything against them tracking down terrorists and so on.. but the problem comes to abuse. All a government has to do, is label a person a suspect and then it is fully legal to spy on him/her. Ted Kennedy was most likely spied on because he was on the no fly list.. or Cat Stevens.. or anyone that is Muslim .. is that right? No.

The service providers would probably stop them. This proposal is for government organisations to get access to data service providers are already obliged to keep for 12 months, without needing to get a warrant.

And the services providers would loose their license on security grounds... next. Plus if the government makes it into law, then the service providers have to appeal it to the EU, who most likely will throw out the law.. but that can take years.

On what basis do you say that in the context of this proposal? Warrant or not, nobody is going to go to the effort of getting and analysing this information if they don't already have some cause to suspect an individual.

Dont be so idealistic. Both in the US and UK, warrants and the rule of law have been pissed on in the name of national security and it has been done often. In the UK they have held people without trial or charge for years ... where was the rule of law there? And that was the Labour government that did that, with the full backing of the Conservatives.

Maybe if you dropped the meaningless "left/right" rubbish and applied a little intelligence, you'd be better placed to understand the reality of the situation.

No the right vs left is key to this discussion. It has been the right that for decades tried to abuse the law in the name of security. It was the right that spied on "leftists" world wide, and fixed elections and so on. While I dont deny the left also has its skeletons on this issue, it is the right wing parties that have abused the power of government against their left wing opponents time and time again over history. It was after all a criminal offence once to be a member of a left wing organisation... and during the McCarthy trial, it was almost treason to have leftist views.

It is the same crap going on with piracy.. where it is the right that is with the content providers in their crusade to limit the internet ...

 

[HonestJoe]

Actually it is not. They want to be able to listen in and read all electronic communications.

No, these proposals are specifically not about content. Some people in authority may wish they had access to the contents too but that's a different topic.

And the services providers would loose their license on security grounds... next.

No, they wouldn't. As it stands, they can't release the information in question without a warrant on data protection grounds so if they were punished on those grounds, they would have defence under UK law. Plenty of ISPs are run by people who would certainly stand-up to the government trying to force them to break the law.

Plus if the government makes it into law...

This segment was in relation to the situation now, not after any law based on these proposals is brought in.

Dont be so idealistic.

My answer was in reference to "lock up 100 people just to get one criminal". Your response is entirely irrelevant to that point.

No the right vs left is key to this discussion.

Right vs left isn't relevant to any discussion. The terms are so generic as to be meaningless. You can't characterise every single political ideology, party, administration and individual on a binary scale. There terms are only ever used in this kind of discussion to create simplistic division and conflict where it need not exist.

I'm not playing that game, I'm just discussing the actual policies on a rational basis.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- The service providers would probably stop them. This proposal is for government organisations to get access to data service providers are already obliged to keep for 12 months, without needing to get a warrant.

I'm afraid what the Conservatives are proposing is beyond the original 2009 EU directive to keep internet access, mail and VOIP type phone calls, what is being proposed is real time access to private data as it occurs and without a warrant.

-- Warrant or not, nobody is going to go to the effort of getting and analysing this information if they don't already have some cause to suspect an individual --

Yes but that's the type of rhetoric used in the past to remove other elements of liberty and privacy here in the UK. The last Govt had the brilliant idea of ID cards, supporters saying "if you had no need to hide, no need to worry." I would prefer that intelligence and police officers prove reasonable cause to suspect before breaking privacy, not after. Well, in the case of these proposals, there would be no need to ever prove cause for concern.

 

[Higgins86]

Big Brother is watching! Guess it makes sense I mean the last gov shoved a CCTV camera on every street cornor and even proposed listening devices in lamposts so I guess this is the next logical step.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm afraid what the Conservatives are proposing is beyond the original 2009 EU directive to keep internet access, mail and VOIP type phone calls, what is being proposed is real time access to private data as it occurs and without a warrant.

Erm yes, that’s exactly what I said (with the addition that you're afraid for some reason ).

Yes but that's the type of rhetoric used in the past to remove other elements of liberty and privacy here in the UK. The last Govt had the brilliant idea of ID cards, supporters saying "if you had no need to hide, no need to worry."

You can debate the legitimacy of it as an argument supporting the introduction of such security measures but I don't think you can deny it's generally true. The ID cards idea was scrapped but it's not as if we don't already have all sorts of identification documents. If that posed a major privacy issue, we'd already be suffering it.

Remember that I'm still not explicitly supporting the proposals, just challenging some of the alarmist and fantasist reactions to them.

I would prefer that intelligence and police officers prove reasonable cause to suspect before breaking privacy, not after. Well, in the case of these proposals, there would be no need to ever prove cause for concern.

I'd want suitable checks and balances too. I'm waiting to see what those checks and balances actually are when these proposals are formally presented before dismissing them out of hand though.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Erm yes, that’s exactly what I said (with the addition that you're afraid for some reason ).

I fail to see where you mention "real time" access in your original post, but that's just a minor point. Regarding what will happen eventually, of course the politicians have already started to notice the large outcry and yesterday Nick Clegg was sounding caution. If in the end the result is that the Govt can get access to stored data with a judge's permission - then why have they wasted time making it part of the next Queen's Speech?

 

[HonestJoe]

I fail to see where you mention "real time" access in your original post, but that's just a minor point.

I didn't use the term because I don't know what it's meant to mean in this context (and neither do you).

Regarding what will happen eventually, of course the politicians have already started to notice the large outcry and yesterday Nick Clegg was sounding caution. If in the end the result is that the Govt can get access to stored data with a judge's permission - then why have they wasted time making it part of the next Queen's Speech?

Politically it is certainly a mess. The media have had a field day because the whole thing was made up entirely of speculation so they could claim it meant anything they wanted without challenge (as happened on boards like this too). If I were more cynical, I'd be tempted to suggest that the manner the information came out suggested someone wanted the negative coverage.

None of the politics or paper-selling has the slightest thing to do with the legitimacy (or not) of that actual concepts behind the proposal though.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Erm yes, that’s exactly what I said (with the addition that you're afraid for some reason ).

I didn't use the term because I don't know what it's meant to mean in this context (and neither do you).

So in the first instance, you claim I said exactly what you said but now you admit that I added something which you aren't clear the meaning of. Then in the second instance, claim that there must be another meaning for the term "real time" access; specifically with regard to accessing communications data...

ho-hum.

The media have had a field day because the whole thing was made up entirely of speculation --

Thirdly, the original article I quoted had responses from Liberty, David Davies, Internet Service Providers Association but I suppose they are all just "the media."

:roll:

 

[HonestJoe]

So in the first instance...

No need to be pedantic about a throw-away comment regarding something we agree is a side point.

Thirdly, the original article I quoted had responses from Liberty, David Davies, Internet Service Providers Association but I suppose they are all just "the media."

No, they're responding to it though. They were asked questions by the media to give them more material to spin. If they'd refused to answer, that would be the material spun, probably not in they're favour. Liberty (and possibly David Davies) will also be focused on self-promotion and PR, which is really a form of media.

Regardless, it's still all based on speculation.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

No need to be pedantic about a throw-away comment regarding something we agree is a side point.

I'm "pedantic" because I was being sarcastic about real time access of personal / private data without a warrant being a "minor point" (post 10).

The current situation is that data is stored 12 months now and that data is about contacts, not content. What has been proposed is clearly beyond that - whether you understand the difference between retrospective access of contact data and real time access of that data is another point entirely.

No, they're responding to it though. They were asked questions by the media to give them more material to spin. If they'd refused to answer, that would be the material spun, probably not in they're favour. Liberty (and possibly David Davies) will also be focused on self-promotion and PR, which is really a form of media.

:lamo

Regardless, it's still all based on speculation.

The point (returning to my 1st post and the whole point of the thread..) is that this same Conservative party opposed similar proposals when Jaqui Smith was in power. Sometimes Govts propose or deliberately leak proposed legislation to get a feel for its reception in public (as Labour did when they proposed new legislation on Govt storing all private data) and it is there to be discussed by the media / opposition and affected parties.

The above is what has happened now, the current govt has either leaked to the media or put it out that such a proposal will be put forward. The news is out for discussion by one and all thus to simply say "it's just speculation" or "self promotion" by Liberty and conservative back-benchers ignores how draft legislation has often been deliberately leaked to the public for information gathering process. Besides, the job of (a good) media is to hold politicians to account as well as to inform us (the public) of the issues.

Returning yet again to the point of the thread, public concern and the opposition as well as groups like Liberty succeeded in changing the (then) Govt mind on such proposals, that is what I hope is going to happen by open discussion rather than a "wait and see" approach.