
Investigatory Powers Bill passes through Commons after Labour backs Tory spy law - iamben
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/labour-backs-principle-of-investigatory-powers-bill/
======
pascalmemories
As the article mentions, UK agencies have always conducted intense snooping
under the 1984 Telecommunications act (spying suggests some target or
objective in mind when what's happening is really just hoovering up data on
people, 'just in case it's needed'). The 1984 act was a useful fig leaf to
cover what had been a long-standing activity (as witnessed by the preposterous
Wilson Doctrine to supposedly protect MPs from the snooping that everyone else
was subject to).

The UK Government loves making supposed legal rules for what is essentially a
no-holds-barred snoop-fest. Any legislation which would limit what are, in
effect, unrestrained powers, are neutered. e.g. The Data Protection Act has
blanket exclusions for "prevention and detection of crime" (handy for snooping
employers too!) and the Protection From Harassment Act specifically permits
law enforcement bodies to harass people without the ability of people to seek
redress [that bill itself was initially a device created for Huntingdon Life
Sciences to have a way to deal with animal rights protesters (which was a real
problem - no matter where you sit on that issue); it's since been usefully
pivoted by those being harassed by debt collectors to turn the tables and gain
compensation, so it's not all bad.[1]).

This new law will do nothing to protect UK residents, nor anyone unfortunate
enough to have any data transiting UK routing nodes, where their data is
recorded by bulk surveillance.

The pretense that something is being improved or balances and safeguards of
peoples liberty are somehow being created, is insulting.

[1]
[http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/torts/49567.fullarticle](http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/torts/49567.fullarticle)

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> "a historic commitment that trade union activities cannot be considered
sufficient reason for investigatory powers to be used."

Which is roughly equivalent to giving a terminal patient aspirin and bragging
you cured their headache (the patient being the unions).

~~~
UVB-76
How anyone can celebrate these concessions is beyond me.

The law will still require ISPs to log every website visited by every UK
internet user for a year, and allow police and intelligence officers to
interrogate this data without a warrant.

Meanwhile the security and intelligence agencies will be allowed to continue
their bulk intercepts and collection of bulk communications data (i.e.
collecting everything, whether you're an MP, a doctor, a lawyer, a trade
unionist, etc.)

Of course there's nothing wrong with this because the intelligence agencies
are trustworthy institutions who wouldn't do anything unlawful... [1] [2]

[1]
[https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/482](https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/482)
[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-
in...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-internet-
surveillance-unlawful-court-nsa)

~~~
Silhouette
I'm as concerned about these issues as anyone here, but does the bill that was
given its third reading yesterday actually still do all of those things?

The text runs to hundreds of pages and has had thousands of amendments
considered and many of them applied since the early days. A lot of MPs spoke
in favour of it and then voted for it yesterday despite expressing significant
reservations in the past.

On the other hand, there certainly are still provisions for various kinds of
bulk surveillance and there is still a mention of internet connection records.
Some MPs did indicate that they would be voting against it because of concerns
they still have about these kinds of areas.

There seems to have been remarkably little coverage of this in the UK media so
far (it's almost wall-to-wall EU referendum flamebait at the moment) and I've
yet to see any robust legal analysis of how much things have shifted in the
more controversial areas and how much the various checks and balances that
have been incorporated are actually worth.

If it really is true that sledgehammers like bulk surveillance would still be
used routinely under the current provisions in the bill then it's very
disappointing that it has got through, but I'd like to see some detailed
analysis from experts who've been following the development and understand the
implications of the legal wording.

------
teh
We're a UK company running a project that uses user-facing encryption and one
of the issues for us is that it's totally unclear what this bill means.

I read the relevant sections 10 times over but until this is tested in court
we don't know. I don't want our company to be the test balloon though, so I'm
hoping a larger company steps up and challenges some of the provisions.

Of course the "internet connection record" retention is really sad. Right now
the use cases are very specific but I'm sure new use cases will be found soon
with the usual reasoning (terrorists, etc)

~~~
madaxe_again
When the IP Bill is law and the UK has left the EU in a few weeks time, we'll
be winding up our company, making our 40 employees redundant.

We don't really have a choice. We work in ecommerce. Can't continue in those
conditions.

It's fine - we'll live off British values.

~~~
robert_foss
Imperialism and sauces organized by colour?

------
torpilla
For those who thought there was any real difference between Labour and Tories
... this is you wake up moment.

~~~
justincormack
Labour have always had a large group in favour of state control that is quite
similar to the old Tory paternalism. They have been liberal on a restricted
range of issues, but only the Liberals have generally been liberal...

~~~
junto
The liberals appeared very unliberal during the coalition. They stabbed the
true liberals in the back. I'll never vote for them again.

~~~
kelnage
Really? They were clearly the smaller of the two parties and I feel the fact
they got anything changed is frankly impressive.

Compared to what the current Conservative government is doing, I feel the Lib
Dems did a pretty good job of tempering their ambitions, without bringing the
entire system to a standstill (which I do not believe for a second to be a
good idea).

~~~
simonbarker87
Agreed, really annoys me when people say that the Lib Dems stabbed true
liberals in the back. I don't know the numbers but lets say they had 5% of the
MPs in coalition, in reality they should have been lucky to influence a couple
of bits of policy a year, in reality they managed to punch above their weight
for all of that parliament, making Nick Clegg deputy might have seemed like a
good idea at the time but in reality it gave the wrong impression that it
would be 50:50 on policy when in reality it was probably more 75:25 and they
did well to get that.

Nick Clegg clearly pulled back on tuition fees to get a referendum on AV which
in hindsight he probably wishes he hadn't done and that then set the tone for
media portrayal over the following 4 years.

Any liberal who says they "sold-out" during the coalition only need to look at
current Tory policy to realise that the LDs did an excellent job pulling the
Tories back. I voted Lib Dem in the last two elections FWIW.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
Perhaps, but they also marched through the lobbies to enable a lot of
genuinely regressive policies to pass, notably Gove's education "reforms".

For example, the LibDem manifesto for 2010 promised to "Switch traffic from
road to rail by investing in local rail improvements, such as opening closed
rail lines and adding extra tracks, paid for by cutting the major roads
budget." [1]

What actually happened to the major roads budget? Well, come 2013, the
coalition was embarking upon a massive programme of road-building, proudly
trumpeted by Danny Alexander (LibDem chief secretary to the Treasury) as "the
greatest investment in our roads since the 1970s". [2] That's not compromise,
that's a 180° U-turn on your manifesto commitments. Meanwhile, actual rail
reopenings were happening in Scotland thanks to the SNP, and in Wales thanks
to Labour, but not in England.

So, no thank you. I had voted LibDem in 2012 and at every general election
since the age of 18. Not in 2015 and not again.

[1]
[http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/li...](http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/man/parties/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf)

[2] [https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/speech-by-chief-
secre...](https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/speech-by-chief-secretary-to-
the-treasury-danny-alexander-investing-in-britains-future)

------
eggy
I am not familiar enough with the UK process, but could Scotland be a large
enough dissenting body within the Westminster Parliament anyway to affect a
vote like this?

Could be another reason for Scotland to secede from the UK, or at least
another item to add to the 'Pros' column.

~~~
objclxt
> _Could be another reason for Scotland to secede from the UK, or at least
> another item to add to the 'Pros' column._

I highly doubt MI6 or GCHQ are concerned with the rights of foreign citizens,
were Scotland to secede.

~~~
rjsw
I guess that an independent Scotland could pay for a new cable to Norway.

