
UK Investigatory Powers Bill: Politicians exempt themselves from new laws - Liriel
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-a7447781.html
======
rl3
Normally this would be a positive feature, since it (in theory) serves to
protect politicians from being coerced or blackmailed. However, I can't help
but think it's the same gutless people that voted this in simply protecting
their own interests above all else.

On the other hand, the protections may serve useful some day should they
suddenly locate their spines—or perhaps a wave of vertebrate politicians
somehow takes office. Either way, the protections would make it easier for the
newly-granted surveillance powers to be revoked. Wishful thinking, of course.

At least the UK doesn't waste time on charades like we do here in the
US—serving up deprecated or redundant surveillance programs on the altar of
political sacrifice while other, more compartmented programs (usually broader
and more invasive in scope) seamlessly take their place. Then again, perhaps
there's just not enough public opposition to justify the effort in the first
place.

~~~
deutronium
I'm not sure how it's a positive feature at all, why should they be treated
differently from the rest of us.

~~~
dom0
I'm not sure why anyone would expect the agencies to actually adhere to these
laws (they didn't before anyway). Having a nice bucket of kompromat on every
relevant politician is rather enticing.

~~~
rl3
The ultimate justification for spying on politicians is under the guise of
counterintelligence. Have to make sure they're not under the influence of
foreign powers, or leaking classified information.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIP...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIPAC_allegations)

Of course, sometimes it's just easier to poorly fabricate supposedly-
intercepted communications, do the political damage, and then refuse to
divulge any evidence citing either classification grounds or the absence of an
investigation.

------
johngalt
Before anyone looks down their nose at the UK. This is really common in the US
as well. If the law is onerous, then there will be exceptions for the
politically connected. If the law is helpful or permissive, then it will apply
to the politically connected first.

A good barometer for deciding if proposed legislation is helpful or harmful:
figure out who the law applies to first and who it applies to last.

~~~
javiramos
I am very curious about this phenomenon. Do you have any examples or
references?

~~~
arca_vorago
Insider trading not being illegal for congress comes to mind. Immunity from
prosecution for revealing classified information on the house floor as well.
Those are the two I always think of when pondering this subject.

~~~
jan888
But we don't even have insider trading laws. Insider trading is something the
courts came up with based on an expanded meaning of fraud.

~~~
arca_vorago
Wait, are you saying insider trading _laws_ are actually just extended use of
fraud laws, but no laws specifically for insider trading? If so, I find that
very interesting.

~~~
jan888
Yes. There is no law against insider trading, just the SEC and judges thinking
it's really bad so we should punish it even if Congress never got around to
passing an actual law against it.

See here for one example [0]. The SEC does have rules against it, so it's not
entirely on a case-by-case basis [1]. It's just the SEC isn't supposed to
write law.

[0] [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-11/whats-
nex...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-11/whats-next-for-
insider-trading-law)

[1]
[http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm](http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm)

~~~
fweespeech
> See here for one example [0]. The SEC does have rules against it, so it's
> not entirely on a case-by-case basis [1]. It's just the SEC isn't supposed
> to write law.

It isn't really.

[https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts120111rsk.htm](https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts120111rsk.htm)

> There is no express statutory definition of the offense of insider trading
> in securities.3 The SEC prosecutes insider trading under the general
> antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, most commonly Section
> 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule
> 10b-5, a broad anti-fraud rule promulgated by the SEC under Section 10(b).
> Section 10(b) declares it unlawful “[t]o use or employ, in connection with
> the purchase or sale of any security . . . any manipulative or deceptive
> device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the
> Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest
> or for the protection of investors.”4 Rule 10b-5 broadly prohibits fraud and
> deception in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. As the
> Supreme Court has stated, “Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all
> fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities,
> whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or
> present a unique form of deception,” because “[n]ovel or atypical methods
> should not provide immunity from the securities laws.”5

Congress wrote some very broad anti-fraud laws, never amended them, and left
it up to the SEC to exercise its discretion on what qualified as such
practices.

------
rebuilder
When they say records are not able to be accessed without a warrant, do they
mean that or do they mean it's illegal to access the records without a
warrant?

~~~
rl3
That is an excellent question.

The NSA developments in recent years have shown that while privacy protections
do exist that limit access to collected data (e.g. FISA warrants), they're
still collecting everything on everyone regardless. The intercepted data then
rots in a huge database for years at a minimum—in practice probably
indefinitely.

In what was one of the the most brilliant legal/public relations plays in
recent history, NSA decided to play a shell game with the definitions of the
terms "collection" and "targeting", redefining them (when convenient) as the
_accessing_ of data—by humans—that's already been intercepted and stored.

~~~
seanp2k2
With _accessing_ further defined as an actual human looking at it, not a
computer parsing it or generating statistics over the collected data of
individuals in aggregate.

~~~
rl3
Updated my comment to reflect that, thanks.

A good example of the distinction is the raw audio of a domestic phone call in
the US. First it's intercepted in bulk, then automatically sent to DSP
hardware for transcription into a searchable text log.

That wouldn't qualify as "collection" as the NSA defines it until a human
analyst actually listened to or laid eyes upon the data.

Automated analysis programs looking for keywords or specific patterns of
behavior within the data probably require legal authorization as well.
However, it's unclear if the legal authorizations such programs operate under
are broad in nature, or issued individually in a more explicit manner.

------
mike-cardwell
"Internet connection records – a history of every website that someone has
visited, but not every page – will still be collected for MPs"

So at least if a shifty employee feels like taking a look at the data, or
leaks the data, or an ISP gets hacked, our MP's browsing history will be
exposed too.

~~~
wlkr
Unfortunately I don't think that the retention aspect will be revoked - no
matter how much it's detested - but I do believe the only way that the
government will tighten access is when a few people inevitably leak at best
embarassing data on members of the political class.

The lack of technological literacy amongst the populus and the utter contempt
which the government has towards privacy and anonymity is very disheartening.

------
doc_holliday
Slightly related question, does anyone know if these laws are backdated. I.e a
year's worth of data retention is that available to the list of access from
now? As in have ISP already been collecting?

Has the data collection started? Is it about to start?

~~~
tonyedgecombe
'Has the data collection started?'

I think we can assume it's been going on for years already.

------
Create
_We begin therefore where they are determined not to end, with the question
whether any form of democratic self-government, anywhere, is consistent with
the kind of massive, pervasive, surveillance into which the Unites States
government has led not only us but the world.

This should not actually be a complicated inquiry._

[https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-
WhyFreedomOfThoughtRe...](https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-
WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia)

Surveillance is not an end toward totalitarianism, it is totalitarianism
itself.

------
ionised
Seriously, bring out the guillotine.

We are WAY overdue for a culling of the ruling class.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Revolutions are always followed by a new set of leaders, often worse than what
was there before.

~~~
ionised
Often, not always.

I'm under no illusion that revolutions are bloodless, but I believe that
sometimes they are the the only option when system becomes so corrupt and
rigged in favour of a small, wealthy, ruling elite.

The French Revolution for example which was grisly as all fuck and the years
of instability afterwards can not be understated. Yet I do believe that what
eventually came out of it (the French Republic) is far, far better than what
came before the people started chopping the heads off the insane, greedy,
oppressive aristrocracy.

There are of course counter-examples. The Russian revolution. Though was the
revolution itself the problem there, or the people that commandeered it for
themselves in the years afterwards (e.g. Stalin)?

I cannot see a way to fix the current system. The populace is so suppressed in
ways that are sometimes subtle as fuck. Decades of demagogue politicians
playing on fears, dividing the demographics into us-versus-them tribes out for
blood, fostering the paranoia and fear of the foreigner, engaging in massive
orgies of deregulation of financial services that cause crash after econimic
crash, where the average schmuck picks up the bill and those reponsible get to
carry on as normal.

Repealing basic services like welfare and healthcare, fostering resentment
between age groups, racial groups and classes as a misdirection of attention
from the actual cause of our current ills, socially irresponsible banks and
financial services that have no tangible value to society other than to move
money around.

Intelligence services and police forces focused on inward threats from their
own people lest they somehow upset the status quo of funneling up the wealth
of nations into the hands of a few oligarchs at the top of the pyramid.

Western democracy is completely fucked. It has been corrupted and made a sick
facsimile of what it was intended to be. There is no fixing this system
without massive civil unrest, and that impending civil unrest is why (I
believe) we are witnessing the insance lurch towards authoritarianism and
watering down of basic rights all over Europe and the US, it's those with a
lot to lose preparing themselves.

And they are winning. They will continue to fuck us all as long as we keep
falling for the whole 'terrorist', 'immigrants', 'paedophile', 'hackers'
bullshit as a reason why they must keep taking away our rights and liberties.

We are frogs slowly boiling alive in the cooking pot.

~~~
arethuza
From a discussion of _1984_ :

 _" beginning with the historical observation that societies always have
hierarchically divided themselves into social classes and castes: the High
(who rule); the Middle (who work for, and yearn to supplant the High), and the
Low (whose goal is quotidian survival). Cyclically, the Middle deposed the
High, by enlisting the Low. Upon assuming power, however, the Middle (the new
High class) recast the Low into their usual servitude. In the event, the
classes perpetually repeat the cycle, when the Middle class speaks to the Low
class of "justice" and of "human brotherhood" in aid of becoming the High
class rulers."_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oli...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivism)

~~~
eli_gottlieb
People forget two things when they quote Orwell as evidence for perma-
cynicism:

1) Orwell as himself a democratic socialist, writing on behalf of democratic
socialism.

2) The level of stratification between high, middle, and low varies massively
across time and place. _More_ egalitarian societies _have_ actually existed.

~~~
arethuza
For what it's worth I probably have very similar political views to Orwell -
my reaction wasn't "perma-cynicism" but deep skepticism that a violent
revolution that calls for "culling" and capital punishment would actually make
things any better for the average person - just replacing one ruling class
with another.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Well, to go back to cynicism for a moment, I think it partially depends on
whether the ruling class has the basic sanity to relinquish enough of their
power nonviolently that life for the masses can return to a tolerable norm.
The French Revolution did not merely happen because inequality was too severe,
but because of the "let them eat cake" attitude on the part of the elite. The
English, in contrast, were once-upon-a-time willing to reform their system to
reduce inequality rather than suffer yet another civil war.

~~~
arethuza
I'd have said that the best example of a reform in the UK system was the post-
war Attlee government that introduced the NHS. However, that required a desire
for change that was driven by the "total war" exertions of WW2.

------
secfirstmd
Politicians making one rule for the plebs and one rule for themselves? Well I
never!

~~~
ghostDancer
Politicians are the new noble class, it's like middle age but instead of
count/dukes and the rest we now have politicians. Maybe we need another french
revolution.

~~~
gmac
Please, enough of this nonsense. What we need is for _people to vote for
better politicians_. To my mind, the main obstacle to that is the awful UK
press, and the increasing extent to which the BBC is a government broadcaster
rather than a public broadcaster.

~~~
probablybroken
It will be hard for people to vote for better politicians, so long as those
politicians who are allowed to represent an existing party have to be selected
by the party itself.

~~~
gmac
A large part of the problem is some of the existing parties, sure. But in
Brighton, for example, we have Caroline Lucas, who is a wonderful MP.

~~~
secfirstmd
Jeremy Corbyn for example is actually a decent human being (can vouch for this
as work with him a bit in Westminster), despite some of his policies. However
he is hounded out by the media and political class.

~~~
stevetrewick
Maybe. But where was he, and where were the rest of his party when this
abomination was being shoved through parliament? Abstaining in the commons and
cheerleading it in the lords. So pardon me if I don't buy him being a decent
chap having any bearing whatsoever on this issue.

~~~
toyg
He is clearly not in control of his MPs in the commons, and even less so in
the Lords (which are now stacked with Blair cronies). He has to pick his
battles very carefully.

Mandatory reselection after boundary changes should see to that.

------
Fjolsvith
Next up, Politicians exempt themselves from losing office.

------
tupilaq
Whilst at first glance this doesn't look altogether fair, I can understand why
its been done.

The government should not be able to use the tools of state to suppress
legitimate parliamentary opposition. There would be nothing to stop the party
in power using the law to specifically target opposing parties.

For the rest of us here in the UK, your traffic is already being collated and
probably has been for some time.

~~~
amelius
> The government should not be able to use the tools of state to suppress
> legitimate parliamentary opposition. There would be nothing to stop the
> party in power using the law to specifically target opposing parties.

Why not introduce a law that further decouples intelligence agencies and the
government. It could be made mandatory that information released by agencies
are released to _all_ members of parliament. This way, the government gets
more transparency, and the people also get more transparency indirectly.

Just my 2 pence.

~~~
lostboys67
That would require all MP's to be vetted :-)

~~~
amelius
We could start by disclosing only (detailed) meta-information.

Or we could choose 1 MP per party to be informed.

~~~
toyg
The Leader of the Opposition is already in Privy Council, which (I believe)
means he'll get most of the security briefs he wants to. He should probably be
in COBRA too, but I don't think that's the case at the moment.

------
karmacoda
The UK is as corrupt as everyone claims Russia is, starting with the BBC.
Theresa May has turned out to be a tyrant. As a Brit, I don't know if I'm more
disgusted by the arrogance of the ruling class, or the apathy of the
subservient working class. Dystopia is here. Talk of bloody revolution is not
necessary - the first cyber revolution?

~~~
jahnu
Please. This is hyperbole of the first order.

[http://www.transparency.org/country#GBR](http://www.transparency.org/country#GBR)

[http://www.transparency.org/country#RUS](http://www.transparency.org/country#RUS)

~~~
yAnonymous
"Corruption perception index"

That's the problem. Corruption in the UK isn't perceived as such, because they
go to greater lengths to hide it. That doesn't change the fact that UK
politics are rotten to the core and their politics have a much bigger global
effect. Remember when London bankers recently manipulated the stock market and
got away with it?

And let's not ignore that Transparency International themselves are somewhat
shady. They gave Hillary Clinton an award for integrity and that's only the
funniest of their failings.

~~~
waqf
The fact that people feel compelled to go to greater lengths to hide it is
itself a net positive, no? The higher the costs of doing X, the less X there
will be.

~~~
yAnonymous
>The higher the costs of doing X, the less X there will be.

That's a very simplistic and primitive way to look at it. For one, there are
more and wealthier people involved so the costs are shared. Profits are also
bigger, because the UK is better connected, so the increased investment costs
are acceptable.

