Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Urgent Privacy Update: Telecoms and E-mail information to be available to almost any UK governmental agency without a warrant!

21:08 / 11.06.02

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,735501,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_2037000/2037459.stm

Ok - If you haven't been keeping up with this stuff, it's about time you started. Rather than repeat everything said, I thought I'd reproduce some rather better wrtten and more comprehensive material...

"I don't often get political, but this is IMPORTANT. The government is proposing to pass a piece of secondary legislation (to the RIP Act) next week that extends access to your email and telephone
traffic data to a a whole pile of new organisations, including Consignia, the Food Standards Agency, any local Fire Brigade (!), and any employee of any council. There is no warrant required, no judicial oversight, and it is illegal for ever to be told. This sounds ridiculous, but it's true. The only way to stop is to
create a huge bloody fuss RIGHT NOW. There's more detail, and a link to FaxyourMP.com, at http://www.stand.org.uk"

22:08 / 11.06.02

Nice one, although I don't think this should be in the sci-tech ghetto. This is politics, civil rights, democracy, basic personal freedoms and not being spied on by traffic wardens.

Can one cross-post in here?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:01 / 12.06.02

Repost the links and the jist in the Conversation, then...or better, send people here.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:14 / 12.06.02

This is ludicrously out of order.
BUT... am I the only person on here that's paranoid to have assumed it was already happening?

10:27 / 12.06.02

Alright, I agree - this is disgusting. There are undoubtedly situations where it is necessary and right for the state to listen in on conversations, bug telephone lines, read letters, etc. Clearly in the modern age this extends to monitoring traffic information. If you can trail a man, why not do so by means of locating him by where his mobile phone is? OK, so there are obviously difficulties created by the fact that modern technology allows for a wider and far more pervasive monitoring of individuals. On the other hand, I personally feel that this is more than off-set by the ability of individuals to use technology to assist in whatever activity they wish to participate in.

However, any form of monitoring of individuals should be strictly controlled, for self evident reasons. (Usually I think anybody saying 'self-evident' in an argument is avoiding a difficult issue, but unless anybody takes me up on this one I'll let it lie here.) The real questions are:
(i) Is it necessary? In other words, can we achieve the same or equivalent results at less risk to freedom?
(ii) How can we keep a check on it, to ensure that it is not being abused?

As to the former - frankly, the idea of the Fire Department needing to monitor traffic information EVER is ridiculous. If they need to locate a telephone (to identify a prank caller, for instance) then they should just ask the police.

As to the latter - why is there no possibility of judicial monitoring of this process? Actually, there is - it's called Judicial Review. However, this is a post-facto type of monitoring, and very complicated and expensive and, frankly, an uphill struggle. (The test is usually whether the public authority took action which no reasonable public authority could have legally taken.)

Overall, I think that the 9-11 events are simply being used as a cover by which more draconian powers are being seized by a government which is supposed to be liberal.

And the saddest thing is - I cannot think of anybody except a government minister and members of the security services actually supporting this sort of behaviour and yet it will still almost certainly be passed by Parliament! AAAARGH!

13:16 / 12.06.02

i find i must agree with stoatie and i'm assuming *they* are just making official what *they* have been doing for a long time anyway. i faxed my MP this morning - not something i really have much faith in, but this is something that has to be fought. would've thought this was the kind of thing journos like john pilger would be screaming about, must check his site....

13:22 / 12.06.02

It's hardly new, though, is it? It's not like anyone who wants this information can't get it from a private detective in 48 hours, for a price. The question then is whether it's usable...newspapers, employers, spouses, adoption agencies, insurance companies...who has the right to know and act on information? And what is a fair response?

The other things which strikes me as more significant is the blurriness of the law regarding the internet in combination with this legislation. What's legal and what isn't? What can be published - be it porn or politics - and what constitutes a criminal action? Reading? Dowloading? Publishing (IP or individual...)?

14:37 / 12.06.02

I just did a feature on this for my newspaper today. I spoke to the deputy leader of the city council who was actually quite alarmed at the prospect of the local authority being given these powers. The way things stand, the council can obtain such records with a court order, if they suspect something along the lines of massive organised benefit fraud or whatever. Quite reassuringly, this guy thought it was a terrible invasion of privacy and the council was going to discuss what they were going to do about it, and whether they actually WANTED these powers or not.

There's also the question of resources... most public bodies won't be able to have a big department of people sitting in a room sifting through e-mails.

Presumably, they won't just be able to log on and eavesdrop on e-conversations, it's a case of getting records from the ISP/communications providers, whatever.

It is, however, a shocking thing, and as many people as possible must be made aware of it. Which was why I did a feature. Not that I expect most people to give a shit, really.

gozer the destructor

21:05 / 12.06.02

From the people i've spoken two there eems to be either the feeling of object horror regarding this malicious attempt to stamp out ANYTHING the powers that be see as threatening, which reminds me of the recent cases of union officials being broken into and the prime suspects being inteligence agencies, and a sort of numb acceptance that it's a necisity in this day and age (and a smaller third party i suppose that say it's always been happening).

The main questions that have to be asked are why are these invasions into personal information, historically protected by the courts, now being made available to virtually anybody who represents the will of the powers at be? ie local government, police, traffic wardens, health officials(this i find the most curious); do these powers aid the majority of the voting public or the minority, the wealthy elite/powers that be, that the reduction in vote turnout has shown the public has reducing faith in?; why are these extrorndinary far reaching powers being given to the government without any public or parliamentary debate, even though the voting public has been historically against the representatives of the powers that be having rights to examine personal details at will ie the rejection of ID cards after the second world war?

This is an incredibly scary tactic from a government that denounced the policies of the far right and yet seems to be doing it's utmost to create a police state.

We all love big brother...

06:38 / 18.06.02

the government were supposed to debate this today, but have delayed it to next week - due to the fact that the tories are threatening to throw it out when it goes through the house of lords.

07:13 / 18.06.02

The last I heard on the news last night (Monday) was that the SI (statutory instrument expanding the powers) was to be withdrawn and re-presented to Parliament with 'added safeguards'.

FYI: It could be worse. This is what is known as 'enabling secondary legislation', which means that something is theoretically allowed under primary legislation (i.e. statute) and then is activated by means of secondary legislation (i.e. statutory instrument). There are three types of SI: (i) You have to get Parliament to agree to it, which is what you have here. (ii) You just have to show Parliament the SI, and they cannot prevent it - this would be pretty disastrous. (iii) What is known as a Henry VIII SI (after that well known despot), which is where the SI actually amends the statute. At least we have type (i).

11:20 / 18.06.02

GREAT NEWS!
It appears Blunkett has backed down and will not be introducing the legislation and will only be revisiting the matter in the next session of parliament.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_2051000/2051117.stm

Our Lady of The Two Towers

11:26 / 18.06.02

Now all I have to do is wait and see if my MP actually bothers to reply to the Fax I sent on Friday...

13:41 / 18.06.02

i was just about to post the good news.

so, basically, they thought they could get away with it and only backed down because of the opposition - not because of the ethics of the plan. i haven't had any response from my m.p., and i was so cynical of being able to do anything about this, that i nearly didn't bother, but perhaps this is a good example of people having some power after all.