
Lords Sneak UK Internet Snooping Law into Bill - rwmj
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2015/01/lords-sneak-uk-internet-snooping-law-bill-minus-safeguards.html
======
jblok
Bills like this worry me greatly as an advocate for internet freedoms and
because of a desire to a right to privacy.

When I discuss government plans for the internet with non-technical people it
worries me even more that they aren't at all concerned about it. I hear
arguments like 'I have nothing to hide' and 'If it stops terrorism, why not'.

I try to tell people that they should demand a right to privacy from the
state, but I find it hard to not come across as a tin foil hat wearing
goverment-skeptic. What arguments do you use with people that don't understand
the web all that well to get them to care about this stuff?

~~~
pgeorgi
I usually go with "The problem isn't the current government, the problem is
what might be in the future. The Netherlands stored data about their citizens'
religious affiliation. The Nazis really appreciated that when they came and
rounded up the Jews."

~~~
user24
Me too, but in the back of my mind is always the knowledge that it's a
slippery slope argument and therefore technically invalid.

~~~
TeMPOraL
There's nothing in a "slippery slope argument" that makes it technically
invalid. Improper use may make it fallacious, but there are also real slippery
slopes and ways to deal with them (e.g. Schelling fences).

------
tomtoise
Your obtrusive and underhanded domestic spying law gets shot down by a
democratic procedure? No problem! Just tack it onto a bill already being
considered by the House of Lords and sidestep the whole pesky review process.

~~~
themartorana
Happens in the US all the time, too. It's the very thing that makes the line-
item veto so controversial. I want someone to be able to knock down pork (or
worse, like this) added to non-related bills, at the last minute, in the
middle of the night, with no debate. But do I want that power to always exist?

Edit: happened like 5 times just last month and could have shut down the
government. Now Dodd-Frank is all but dead, campaign donation limits are up
from $92k to $777k, the EPA is further defunded, and more - all last minute
riders with almost zero debate.

[http://www.newsweek.com/what-did-congress-sneak-last-
minute-...](http://www.newsweek.com/what-did-congress-sneak-last-minute-
spending-deal-291090)

~~~
ck2
Actually an even worse thing in our "democracy" is how a single person in
congress can put a hold on a bill and bury it - while remaining completely
anonymous.

How the hell is that even possible

Line item veto would be incredibly dangerous. We'd end up with 100% corporate
welfare while the entire foodstamp program would be canceled.

~~~
themartorana
You're right - line-item veto could be very dangerous, especially if it's
exercised by the person you voted against.

~~~
mcb3k
I think a modified version of a line-item veto, where the president would be
able to cross out the offending lines, and then send it back to congress for
them to vote on the modified version of the bill could be useful. I think it
would be significantly less dangerous than having a normal line-item veto.

~~~
mhurron
Wouldn't getting rid of last minute riders or unrelated riders be a more
effective way?

------
AlyssaRowan
The Lords are actually more often known for _stopping_ the passing of bills
that sail through Parliament and really, really shouldn't have.

Is this a deliberate attempt by the Lords to sabotage the passing of the main
bill, by putting in something they know the coalition partners the Lib Dems
already voted down? Seeing who tabled it, maybe not, but we need to be alert
that the latest fight for our liberties won't just start at the next election.

Better make sure the Lib Dems know. Ugh.

~~~
pjc50
One of the lords responsible is Ian Blair, the former Met Police commissioner.
The one in charge at the time of the De Menezes shooting. The one who was a
close friend of the News of the World at the time all the hacking was going
on.

This guy:

[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/aug/20/ian.blair.pr...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/aug/20/ian.blair.profile)
[http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/26/lord-blair-
la...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/26/lord-blair-laws-
principled-leaking)

~~~
gadders
The one who was forced out by the new Conservative Mayor of London, Boris
Johnson?

~~~
pjc50
Yes. Presumably for being too Blairite.

------
andy_ppp
Democracy at work here - an unelected group of bureaucrats, mostly party
donors (i.e. people who have bribed government for the privilege of being made
a Lord) definitely seem like the right people to be making these calls on
liberty and having the ability to change the law.

------
declan
This could happen in the U.S. as well. Our esteemed politicians and federal
police have proposed a new law with exactly the same approach. I disclosed
some of these efforts in this 2012 article:

 _" The FBI general counsel's office has drafted a proposed law...requiring
that social-networking Web sites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and
Web e-mail alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly. 'If
you create a service, product, or app that allows a user to communicate, you
get the privilege of adding that extra coding'"_
[http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-
sites...](http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now/)

Here's another article from 2006 talking about Rep. Diana DeGette
(D-Colorado). She had originally proposed legislation imposing data retention
requirements on ISPs, but then wanted to extend it to Facebook, Xanga,
MySpace, etc. (to be fair, Rs have made similar proposals):
[http://news.cnet.com/Congress-targets-social-networking-
site...](http://news.cnet.com/Congress-targets-social-networking-
sites/2100-1028_3-6089574.html)

I can't easily find the link to another piece I wrote, but DOJ/FBI reps have
also talked about including photo-sharing sites. This is in addition to the
FBI wanting to force ISPs to keep track of every web site that customers visit
(not just IPs assigned): [http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-wants-records-kept-of-
web-sites...](http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-wants-records-kept-of-web-sites-
visited/)

So far these proposals have not become law, meaning that the types of
companies well-represented here on HN don't have to keep records of their
users' activities for future police access. I've been critical of
AT&T/VZ/Comcast/etc. over surveillance here before, but I'll give them credit
for this: Those of us working on social/email/etc. startups aren't targeted by
all these regulations today because of ISPs' defensive DC efforts over many
years. They're doing it because of self-interest, true, but the spillover
effect is real.

------
contingencies
_The west has pursued an industrialisation path that allows for the
privatisation of wealth from the commons, along with the criminalisation of
commons rights of the public, as well as the externalisation of all true
costs. [...] Our entire commercial, diplomatic, and informational systems are
now cancerous._ \- Robert David Steele, _The Guardian_ , 2014-06-19

------
ComputerGuru
Mod: s/sneek/sneak/ please.

------
disputin
For every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction.

~~~
higherpurpose
I hope if something like this gets passed, there will be a massive protest,
not just in the streets, but everyone starting to use Tor, TextSecure and
other such apps they are most worried about.

~~~
kbart
I doubt that very much. Masses don't care about privacy, the dominating view
is still that of "I have nothing to hide" and "let police do their job --
_think of a children /terrorism_" or any other mantra that's popular at the
time. Look at Snowden story, only tech sector and human right activists care,
there were no widespread protest, no political action, and since then
surveillance only broadens. Especially in UK, which is has CCTVs on every
corner ([http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-
surveilla...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-surveillance-
camera-for-every-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html)).

------
goombastic
Looks like we need version control for bills.

------
iopq
Why does the UK still have the house of the Lords? The elites don't control
enough of the government?

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> Why does the UK still have the house of the Lords

Why would the House of Lords stop existing? Not changing things is a
tradition.

~~~
iopq
Because it's appointed elites deciding how the government should be run?

~~~
chrisseaton
You could call them appointed elites, or you could call them a distinguished
technocracy, many of whom are not career politicians, but instead respected
scientists, military officers, artists, composers, former heads of public
bodies, business leaders, sportspeople etc. They bring an insight to
government that many politicians cannot.

When you look at it from that angle I think it makes a lot of sense and is
actually rather progressive.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> I think it makes a lot of sense and is actually rather progressive.

I don't think that the House of Lords is "progressive". Put it this way: In
only two countries do senior clergymen automatically get a seat in a house of
Legislature: Iran and the United Kingdom.

It's not progressive company to keep.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Put it this way: In only two countries do senior clergymen automatically get
> a seat in a house of Legislature: Iran and the United Kingdom.

Well, there's at least one other sovereign state in which people hold
legislative office by virtue of holding particular senior religious office --
and which goes further in that there are no _other_ legislators -- Vatican
City.

But that's a bit different...

