
Britons: You Have 72 Hours to Stop the Snooper's Charter - sinak
https://www.eff.org//deeplinks/2015/01/britons-you-have-72-hours-stop-snoopers-charter
======
jsnathan
Strong guarantees of privacy are essential to enable political dissent.
Without it, opinions opposed to the prevailing majority view point are not
only side-lined, but the very expression of an interest in them becomes a
cause for controversy and social rebuke.

Without privacy individuals are unable to explore, consider and evaluate
diverging ideals, and eventually reach new personal convictions which may in
time turn the tide against the status quo. Instead, the fermentation of ideas
is cut short, as most people are unable to stand the push-back inflicted on
them by society at an early stage in their thought-process, leading to self-
censorship and group-think.

Society incurs much more damage from so many angles, ranging from murders to
car accidents to diseases, that it does not need to jump in such abject terror
at the thought of political violence - still a comparatively rare occurence in
most places on this earth - so as to trample on the very foundation of every
democracy:

Which is the freedom of the individual in his own thoughts, to form his own
personal opinions unimpeded by institutionalised social pressure.

The mass-scale erosion of privacy must be stopped before it is too late to
reverse the trend.

~~~
lmorris84
_Without it, opinions opposed to the prevailing majority view point are not
only side-lined, but the very expression of an interest in them becomes a
cause for controversy and social rebuke._

I think in many ways we're already there, but it's society as a whole causing
this rather than government(s) specifically.

Heaven forbid you have an opinion on (for example) gay marriage if that
opinion is anything BUT full throated support. Look at what happened to
Brendan Eich.

We definitely need to resist government oversight, but the problem is much
bigger than that IMHO.

~~~
diyorgasms
While you should be allowed to express whatever viewpoint you have regarding
gay marriage, I have yet to see an argument against which is not rooted in
bigotry.

Is your argument that people should be allowed to spew bigoted and hateful
nonsense without facing any social repercussion whatsoever?

~~~
alextgordon
Many (non-religious) gay people don't like gay marriage. I agree with the
previous comment that the level of social pressure on the issue has reached
ridiculous levels.

You can't have a conversation about it without one of those awful social
disclaimers "now I support gay marriage but..." tacked on to your opinion.

~~~
CamperBob2
I don't like any form of marriage, gay or otherwise, but I like discrimination
even less. There should be a heavy social cost associated with wearing certain
opinions on one's sleeve... and there is, as Brendan Eich discovered.

In short, this is exactly what social behavior is _for_ : moving civilization
forward as a whole. If people like Eich insist on being left behind, they have
that right, but they don't have the right to drag the rest of us down with
them.

~~~
alextgordon
In most parts of the world there would be a heavy social cost to supporting
gay marriage.

The costs of cracking down on undesirable opinions greatly exceed the risks of
allowing people to voice them.

Not that it makes much of a difference. People will continue to be closed-
minded, whether I like it or not.

~~~
CamperBob2
Who said you weren't "allowed to voice" your opinion? Only the government (or
terrorists) can stop you.

That's very different from social pressure. You have a right to speak, and to
not be physically restrained from doing so, but you don't have a right to be
free of any social consequences that follow. You're free to talk your way into
a job, or out of one.

~~~
paulhauggis
Right. You are free to have your opinions. But if you offend the wrong person,
you will most likely get fired from your job, shunned completely from your
community, or bullied online.

It's not even about the truth anymore. Even mainstream news organizations spin
and lie about what actually happened, with real-world consequences (and no
consequences for the news orgs or the reporters). Every news outlet spread
lies about the Ferguson incident, before we even had any credible witnesses or
facts. When the facts finally came out, they continued to spread the same lies
(and many continued to believe them).

In the past couple of years, there have been dozens of reporters that have
gotten fired for an obvious mistake that was deemed 'offensive' by the likes
of political activist groups and used as fuel to fire them. It's just another
form of bullying.

Many people don't even know that Al Sharpton will threaten companies and
demand money or work in exchange for not going after them publicly. Pepsi paid
him thousands per year in the 90s and XM radio actually gave him his own show
for a couple of years to get him to stop talking about the "homeless charlie"
incident that happened a few years back. A quick Google search will show you
many companies that essentially pay him hush money. It tells me that when he
cries racism, it's not about bettering society, but lining his pockets. It
seems this is public knowledge now. Why isn't he in jail?

I don't really use Facebook besides some simple private messaging between
friends. Why? I can predict the coming storm that many people don't seem to
see. Anything online can and will be used to instantly form an opinion about
you and your life style. Not having the right "culture fit" might just mean
someone in management doesn't agree with your political opinions.

The ex-Mozilla CEO is another good example of the problem with today's
society. He donated a small amount of money to a cause he believed in and was
bullied and ridiculed online until he quit.

If it had been the reverse (he supported gay-marriage and was bullied until he
quit) many of those same people would be crying out about how we need to stop
online bullying and probably demand the government step in. If I were the
Mozilla CEO, I would have set an example and found the people that worked for
the company that spewed the most hate against me and fired them on the spot.

As I've gotten older, I have found that most people are the same: they preach
open and honesty..until it's for a cause that they disagree with. Then, they
just want to silence and discredit the opposition.

Few are for actual freedom, which is sad.

~~~
msandford
> As I've gotten older, I have found that most people are the same: they
> preach open and honesty..until it's for a cause that they disagree with.
> Then, they just want to silence and discredit the opposition.

This is depressingly true. Tolerance of only the ideas that the group agrees
with, otherwise it's [insert something dumb here] and it needs to be stopped!

------
lifeisstillgood
Well I am drunk, so my ex Deputy PM gets the alcohol version of constituency
letters

Attn: Lord Prescott House of Lords

Saturday 24 January 2015

Paul R Brian 18 Regent Way Kings Hill Kent ME19 4EB

Paul@mikadosoftware.com 07540456115

Dear Lord Prescott,

On Monday you have the opportunity to oppose a bill forcing ISPs to hold
excessive amounts of private information in the hope some will be useful in
the fight against crime and political crime.

This information may indeed be useful, but allowing only police and
intelligence services to access it steps down the wrong path.

Please consider opposing this bill until sufficient steps can be put in place
to allow full and unfettered access to everyone's data - by everyone.

A kingdom of the blind policed by the sighted is not free. A kingdom where all
have eyes is equal, and can strive towards free.

Yours sincerely,

Paul R Brian

~~~
kordless
Assume I live in a rather secure hole underground, by myself. There are very
few things I can do, short of connecting to the outside world and interacting
with _something_ in an illegal manner, that can constitute a crime. Maybe I
build something that can harm someone remotely, but that requires intent to do
something to interact with the outside world, so I'm discounting that here.
I'm talking about doing something in my own hole, by myself, with no intent of
leaving or interacting with anyone else.

Should the data that constitutes my actions be available to 'everyone'? I
argue it does not. It's not your data. It's my data.

Now if I decide to leave my hole and go out into the world and interact with
others, things get more complicated. If there is an opportunity where my
information becomes entangled with others, I'm all for sharing it with
everyone, with one caveat. I'd like to know who accessed my data, and if they
accessed it simultaneously with other people's data, I'd like to know their
data as well. I'm down with charging for it as well. Keeps the costs of doing
surveillance on everyone high.

BTW, I'm well aware of the dilemma you are attempting to put your Lord into
here. I just don't think it's that easy to dispel.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I'm up for charging for personal data, for making entangled data available and
many other options - what I don't see is a binary choice between "we need
access to everyone's data to catch the bad guys" and "liberty means anonymity"

Neither seem correct in our new world, and one of the many problems with this
salvo in the "2nd crypto war" is it assumes the fight is on those grounds.

I think that means I am agreeing with you.

Do you get cable in your hole? It sounds like a nice place to retreat to :-)

~~~
kordless
If you consider personal data as unknown to everyone and public data known, it
sorta ends up looking like randomness and order, with the opportunity for
chaos to exist in between.

------
sambenson
According to Lord Bassam, Monday is the committee stage and they won't be
voting...

[https://twitter.com/SteveTheQuip/status/558951743913226240](https://twitter.com/SteveTheQuip/status/558951743913226240)

~~~
AlyssaRowan
It does mean they can take the amendments back out.

Parliament previously rejected this after debate, so it's simply improper for
it to be added to something else in the Lords. This "riders" trick is _highly_
frowned upon here as an abuse of protocol.

If it's ever to be raised again like the highly controversial zombie
legislation it is, it needs to be raised in the next session of the Commons,
after the next General Election (e.g. Cameron probably would, along with his
"let's ban encryption" muppetry). And the Lib Dems will _probably_ oppose it
again, as would the Greens and Pirate Party, should they hold any sway.

Even the Information Commissioner has strongly warned against the consequences
of knee-jerk reactions in surveillance/privacy-impacting legislation like
this.

------
KaiserPro
Don't use twitter, its easily dismissed. Use
[https://www.writetothem.com/](https://www.writetothem.com/) its far more
effective to express reasoned though in a message >140 chars.

------
andrewaylett
And all of the MySociety sites appear to be down! For "maintenance".
Coincidence? Conspiracy? How do I talk to my (elected or otherwise)
representatives now?

(Yes, it was planned:
[https://twitter.com/mysociety/status/558591332374310913](https://twitter.com/mysociety/status/558591332374310913))

~~~
MarcScott
You can tweet them.

[https://act.eff.org/action/tell-britain-s-lords-don-t-let-
th...](https://act.eff.org/action/tell-britain-s-lords-don-t-let-the-snooper-
s-charter-sneak-past-you)

------
Animats
How did Lord Prescott, who used to be deputy prime minister and was a union
activist, get behind this?

~~~
desas
Lord Prescott did nothing as deputy PM to prevent New Labour from introducing
authoritan legislation.

------
Htsthbjig
So why the eff does not employ a person that talks to a camera and makes a
video over this?

Most people don't read(0). So your message is not heard.

(0)No judging about it, just stating a fact.

~~~
Cakez0r
Outrageous claim(0)

(0)This is a fact

~~~
EliRivers
_Outrageous claim(0)_

Outrageous it may be, but is it true?

~~~
hahainternet
No.

------
sschueller
Does this in any way clash with EU law?

~~~
pjc50
The ECJ ruled the Data Retention Directive unlawful recently. However even if
this is an article 8 violation that may take a while to have an effect (see
the prisoner votes fiasco)

~~~
M2Ys4U
The prisoner votes situation is completely different - that's nothing to do
with EU law.

------
jheriko
There is sadly a much bigger problem when people can not stop widely unpopular
legislation from coming to fruition.

Representative democracy is not always democracy... even with an election
looming.

------
PythonicAlpha
It seems, in some countries, people are just waiting for the next terrorist
act to bring out new ways to undermine the principles of democracy.

Without privacy and the possibility to express one self without fear,
democracy is not possible. We create monstrous systems that become bigger and
bigger and destroy democracy from within.

------
dazbradbury
Not my post, but a comment that potentially explains what's happening here and
provides an interesting viewpoint:

"I am a former parliamentary assistant with experience working on complex and
controversial legislation. I do not think this is a bona fide attempt to pass
the amendments.

1\. Generally, the government lays amendments it actually wants to pass in the
name of the minister leading on the bill. In this instance that's Lord Bates.
He's put lots of other amendments on the list[1] but not this one.

2\. In bill committees, MPs and peers often table amendments that they are not
trying to pass. They do this to secure debating time, argue about the
principles, and occasionally extract commitments from the government. They get
the chance to make speeches and then withdraw the amendments without them ever
going to a vote. I suspect the four peers who tabled this are trying to kick
start a cross-bench movement in favour of stronger security laws. They'll use
their chance to make speeches and then withdraw their amendment. (EDIT: They
have since made clear that this is an earnest attempt to legalise the powers
but as noted above, they are raising this without any co-operation with the
government. Source[2].)

3\. Even if this is a genuine attempt to insert this language, it is a highly
irregular way to go about it and I would bet against it surviving a vote.
Peers are very aware of the role they play in making legislation and they know
they aren't supposed to ram in controversial language like this. It's for the
elected members in the Commons, who have the democratic mandate, to make the
crucial decisions and for the Lords to focus on technical elements. This would
not go down well. In the Lords, the whole House votes at Committee stage. This
means hundreds of peers, who are independently minded and relatively difficult
to whip, would get to express their view. I would not expect them to let this
by.

4\. Even if it survived the committee, the Bill needs to go back to the
Commons, in a process known as "ping pong". The new clauses would almost
certainly be defeated by MPs because the Lib Dems would be whipped against
it[3], depriving the government of its majority, and Labour has already said
it won't support it either[4]. The numbers just aren't there. I am not close
to this issue and could not tell you what they are trying to do. This is all
guess work. But it really does not look like a genuine attempt by the
government, and I wouldn't say it stands much of a chance."

Sources:

Post:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/2te41m/lords_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/2te41m/lords_sneak_uk_internet_snooping_law_into_bill/cnyixgp)

[1] -
[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-20...](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0075/amend/ml075-II.htm)

[2] - [http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/22/snoopers-
char...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/22/snoopers-charter-
changed-version-pass-before-election)

[3] - [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-30870442](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30870442)

[4] - [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/ed-miliband-
sno...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/ed-miliband-snoopers-
charter-paris-attacks)

~~~
dannyobrien
(I also replied to this on Reddit -- essentially, I agree that this isn't a
government-sponsored amendment, but would argue that it _is_ a sincere attempt
to pass the amendments, conducted in the hope that the post-Charlie Hebdo
atmosphere was sufficient to wave through the Comms Data Bill. I don't think
the government wanted their fingers on it, but if it had received no reaction
or support, they wouldn't have fought it hard either.)

------
davidgay
The use of "Britons" sounds tone deaf to me, and hence a rather bad choice
given that they presumably actually want to stop this (British, but more
confused than anything).

[http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/engl...](http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/briton)

~~~
dannyobrien
I wrote the headline; I'm British. It's always a little awkward to pick a term
here, as we don't usually like to refer to ourselves at all much. "Brits" was
too informal for this. UK citizens would have sounded a bit too Airstrip One.
Britons has a nice newspaperly ring, but I agree with you that it is
potentially a little corny, so I believe we only use it for this particular
page.

I also have to deal with the trickiness that the text has to simultaneously
address UK people wanting to take action, and explain the action to curious
people outside of the UK.

For instance, the main action uses different language:

[https://act.eff.org/action/tell-britain-s-lords-don-t-let-
th...](https://act.eff.org/action/tell-britain-s-lords-don-t-let-the-snooper-
s-charter-sneak-past-you)

~~~
ch215
I'm nitpicking, I know, but "act" ought to be amended "bill" in the third
paragraph. Apologies for being such a pedant.

~~~
dannyobrien
Fixed. Thanks!

------
isaacwaller
What a ridiculous clickbait headline from the EFF. The truth is buried 7
paragraphs down:

The amendments announced on Thursday will be formally included into the bill
on Monday, in a committee meeting that was not planned to include a vote. The
Lords will then have two more minor opportunities to debate the content of the
bill before it is passed onto the elected House of Commons in its entirety for
what is expected to be a simple up/down vote. Britain's members of parliament
are currently distracted as they prepare for nationwide elections in May,
which means it is highly likely that a major anti-terrorism bill like this
will collect enough votes to pass.

~~~
hanoz
Your cited "buried truth" is more alarming than the headline.

~~~
estel
Why's that more alarming? "72 hours to stop the bill" is pretty alarming, but
with the bill still in committee, there's still a a little longer for it to go
yet. The third reading is scheduled in a fortnight.

~~~
dannyobrien
Hi, Danny O'Brien from EFF, and the person who wrote the headline and the
paragraph.

I'd say the headline is actually in this case more accurate, but I didn't
really want to add another six paragraphs of insider politics to the blog post
to explain why. Long-form HN comment readers are a different matter, of
course, so here goes:

It's true there are three more readings in the Lords, but my understanding
(and recollection from when I worked more on HoP issues) is that the majority
of these are pretty perfunctory, especially with a bill like this which has a
high government priority to get through before the end of the current
Parliament. Essentially, once these amendments hitch a ride on the process, it
will get steadily more difficult to unmoor them. They will cease to become
amendments, and more a small part of a very important bill.

Rejecting amendments like this at any step is an unusual act, especially when
they are promoted by peers with apparent strong domain knowledge. It's
absolutely impossible if you don't actually have _time_ to debate the details.

So what you have to do is to alert politicians to a procedural violation
instead. Few politicians are experts on Internet surveillance, so wil not feel
confident to go up against domain experts; all of them are experts, however,
on the exact moments they might be being bypassed or steamrollered over.
That's because they're politicians and human beings, and being sensitive to
possible cheating among your peers (pun not intended) is built into their
psychology.

That moment of steamrollering is on Monday. If the amendments go through on
the nod on Monday without a fuss, then the moment will be lost where we can
argue about a violation of procedure. After that, we will have to argue about
the substance of the bill. And there is no parliamentary time allotted for
arguments of substance, because the whole _point_ of inserting these 18 pages
of amendments so quickly is to bypass that debate.

TLDR; yes, there are other opportunities. No, we're really not confident at
all that we could stop the bill at those points. The best and possibly only
probable chance to stop the Snooper's Charter is on Monday.

(For those wondering how you even begin to make these calculations: EFF works
with the Open Rights Group, Britain's own awesome digital rights group. ORG's
advisory bench includes MPs and peers, so they walk us both through the
probabilities.
[https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/advisory](https://www.openrightsgroup.org/people/advisory)
)

Hope this helps.

~~~
isaacwaller
After reading your explanation the headline seems a lot better, sorry for my
ill informed remarks.

