
UK government pushing ahead with surveillance powers bill - stanislavb
http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/01/uk-government-pushing-ahead-with-surveillance-powers-bill-in-face-of-strong-criticism/
======
tanv_nadkarni
One of the dubious Indian journalist (who is above 70 years old) was caught
(and on camera) soliciting sex for a minor and luring her into meeting him. It
made a big news and I almost assumed the guy would be done for good. Turn out
not only the guy got out quietly but continues to write in newspapers
preaching morality to others. I tried a lot of figure out how he might have
escaped the law but I cant.

I am giving this example only to show that when the British government cant
enforce existing laws using available evidence, you cant expect them to dig up
anything new with more powers.

It is something Mahatma Gandhi pointed out years ago about the British. In one
of this Satyagrahas related to Champaran farmers, Gandhiji's modest and only
demand was that the British must only acknowledge that there is a problem
which needs to be solved. According to Gandhiji's colonial power's
unwillingness to even show empathy to people means they are essentially
uninterested in the helping people with their problems.

Law of Karma I guess.

[1] [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/other-news/Indian-
ori...](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/other-news/Indian-origin-
journalist-Hasan-Suroor-arrested-in-UK-on-paedophilia-
charges/articleshow/49756604.cms) [2]
[http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/death-of-
liberalism...](http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/death-of-liberalism-
in-bollywood/194030.html)

~~~
vidarh
> Turn out not only the guy got out quietly but continues to write in
> newspapers preaching morality to others. I tried a lot of figure out how he
> might have escaped the law but I cant.

So you are assuming that he "escaped the law" without having found any
evidence. The articles I've found indicates that a bail amount was set. He
probably met it, pending trial. Unless you've seen him out and about outside
of the UK, you have no basis for assuming he escaped anything.

It's also worth pointing out that he was arrested following a sting by a
vigilante group. There's going to be all kinds of issues with chain of custody
of the evidence etc. that makes this almost entirely unlike a case handled by
police from the start.

~~~
tanv_nadkarni
Whatever might be the reason the guy is not in jail. I think that is where the
government has failed.

------
junto
Back in 2000, the UK government introduced the widely criticized "Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act 2000".

It was even heavily criticized in the House of Lords, but still made it
through to Royal Assent on the 28th July 2000. The bill started in February of
the same year and was pushed through as fast as possible in order to "prevent
internet crime and paedophilia".

The core criticisms [1] surrounded the inclusion of the requirement for
suspects to give up encryption keys or face prison (reverse burden of proof),
and the expansion of the act to allow almost any government body to snoop
secretly on the public.

It was dubbed the "Snooper's Charter" [2], and here we are 16 years later and
that bill is now law and abused every day by councils across the UK to snoop
on people "putting their rubbish bins out on the wrong day" [3]. Seriously,
I'm not making this shit up.

Make no mistake; There is little we can do within the current political
framework, in order to prevent this bill from passing into law, albeit with
minor amendments and other hidden little nasties that we discover later were
snuck in on the quiet.

The government is playing the long game, against a public that doesn't even
realise they are even supposed to be playing the game.

Meanwhile the public are more concerned that "I'm a Celebrity get me out of
here" is about to start, and the tax on petrol and beer to due to rise in the
next budget.

"The only way to win the game is not to play", sadly doesn't apply to this
game.

[1]
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/oct/24/qanda](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/oct/24/qanda)

[2]
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/14/regulation-
investigatory-powers-act)

[3] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-
counc...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-councils-use-
anti-terror-laws-to-spy-on-bin-crimes.html)

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> Meanwhile the public are more concerned that "I'm a Celebrity get me out of
here" is about to start, and the tax on petrol and beer to due to rise in the
next budget.

First of all, "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here" doesn't start until autumn
time.

In all seriousness the lack of concern by the general public surprises me
especially after the high profile coverage of Edward Snowden. I spoke to
someone training as a lawyer (specifically in human rights) and they'd never
heard of Snowden or mass surveillance - and didn't seem to care either when I
explained. That was pretty worrying.

On the other hand the decline of privacy rights has concerned me so much that
I plan to retrain in Law (been in technology for about 9 years since I left
high school) with the sole aim of working to maintain our privacy rights. So
although not everyone cares right now (they probably will when it's too late)
I'm sure there are enough people who do who are willing to do what they can to
try fix this.

~~~
vixen99
It might well be that the lack of concern by the general public is related to
the 'UK's dirty little secrets - illiteracy and innumeracy' \-
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/03/illiter...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/03/illiteracy-
innumeracy-prisons)

------
sandworm101
Part of me wants to say 'bring it on'. I once said to a copyright lobbyist
that I think applies here: "Don't try to out-internet kids". Allowing police
to hack into computers will start a war between law abiding citizens and
police hackers. The cops cannot win that fight. Everyone will mobilize against
them. Their malware will be studied and published across the planet. And it
will certainly help push people away from proprietary systems in favour of
f/oss.

~~~
easytiger
> The cops cannot win that fight.

No because the sourcing will be outsourced to private companies.

------
infodroid
Gotta love the BBC Headline currently on the home page: "Surveillance law:
Revised bill adds privacy safeguards".

~~~
branchless
The BBC is _state_ TV.

They care for you on articles about salt intake or the lack of bees. State
business they would sell you out in a flash.

~~~
orf
Its actually completely seperate from the state, and for good reason. That
being said it's biased on Some topics, this included.

~~~
branchless
It's not separate from the state. When push comes to shove the establishment
tell the BBC what to do.

We've seen this in the 2011 riots. We've seen this in the 2008 banking crisis
and subsequent massive wealth transfers. Now we see it with state
surveillance.

The BBC is on your side until it matters. I don't care what their charter
says, I look at what they do.

The UK is preparing. As living standards continue to fall state surveillance
will become more and more necessary to try and suppress alternate views. How
long before posting a blog on the UK's intractable deficit and massive private
debt is "financial terrorism"?

~~~
asuffield
The main flaw in your argument is that living standards are better than at any
time in history before now.

~~~
motters
As someone who has always been a UK citizen and is old enough to remember
decades past I can say with confidence that this statement is not accurate.

~~~
branchless
Thank you - most old people lie about this (I suspect due to guilt).

------
id122015
As I've read today in The Telegraph, when a man is assaulted on the street UK
police seek our help to identify the gang members who commited the crime. When
travelling by Underground we are reminded constantly to report suspicious
behavior. We are aware that today a handful of minority men police over the
majority, as Noam Chomsky has put it. But we know that policing is a costly
activity, and can observe how the animals around us distribute the cost of
policing to the whole swarm. One day we will study Chomsky at history class
and admit that we, all the other men, are part of the police without requiring
to wear a suit. And will stop this game of minority ruling over the majority.
Because its us the other men that you the Government seek help from when the
actual police shows their weaknesses in solving problems.

------
ianopolous
They're endurance predators, they just don't give up.

~~~
branchless
I said it the other day. The fall of the UK would be highly beneficial for the
working man. They are at the heart of surveillance and at the heart of money
laundering / tax avoidance globally.

They are the oldest landlords.

Oh no, not me

I never lost control

You're face to face

With The Man Who Sold The World

------
JupiterMoon
I've given up fighting this. I'm at a stage now where I think that things need
to get worse before British people understand how dangerous these powers are.

~~~
jkire
It would be nice if we had an effective opposition, but we don't. Not when it
comes to security concerns. Corbyn's stance with trident and Stop the War
means that no one, and I mean no one, can take any argument he puts forward
seriously when it comes to security. The result? The government can get away
with anything that has a vaguely plausible sounding justification.

The only thing that can stop them now is the media, but it really is _not_
their job to be the opposition.

~~~
morsch
Cutting down on nuclear armament, which I presume is what you are calling out
Corbyn for, is hardly something that no one could reasonably consider. You
realize there are entire countries without nuclear weapons, right?

~~~
programmernews3
Like Ukraine?

~~~
vidarh
What would Ukraine do with nukes? Threaten to nuke Moscow? Knowing their
country would become radioactive glass in response? Russia would have no
reason to assume Ukraine would be insane enough to use them over losing a few
regions, and so would have no reason to take them much into account.

~~~
ptaipale
As a side note, Ukraine actually did have nuclear weapons post-USSR. Then,
Ukraine agreed to give them up, in exchange for clauses in treaties where
Russia guarantees its territorial integrity.

So now, after Crimean acquisition, we know that the Russian signature in
nuclear treaties is worth nothing.

------
gerdydog
Its nothing they are not already doing! They are just looking for a way to use
the methods more openly and then they can disclose evidence that usually stays
hidden ("An anonymous tip brought him to our attention") in criminal trials
and prosecutions.

