
UK government quietly rewrites hacking laws to give GCHQ immunity - escapologybb
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/05/uk-government-quietly-rewrites-hacking-laws-to-grant-gchq-immunity/
======
anon1385
“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our
citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'. This
government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.” -- David
Cameron

[http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/uk-britain-
militant...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/uk-britain-militants-
idUKKBN0NX2OW20150513)

~~~
Tenoke
So, do people really think they are contributing by putting this (somewhat out
of context) quote _everywhere_ the UK government is mentioned during the last
week? I am honestly curious.

~~~
smitherfield
Yeah, Cameron was talking about how they have (in the UK) groups who openly*
support ISIS and terrorism, and who are known to have contact with terrorists,
but the UK gov't heretofore can't do anything about because they can't prove
they've broken any laws.

*As in, will give interviews to the media.

~~~
EliRivers
Isn't that the point of _having_ laws? If the UK government thinks people
shouldn't be able to openly support ISIS and terrorism, then make it illegal.

~~~
rorykoehler
Unfortunately that solves nothing. Banning something has never done anything
but push it underground. It's the equivalent of taking pain killers to cure
cancer.

The biggest problem we face in Western society is the proliferation of
extremist conservative agendas in the halls of power. The only way to solve
all the issues we face with extremism whether it be in the guise of Western
conservatism, Islamism, Neo-Liberalism or anything other toxic ideology is to
focus on tolerance and education. Western foreign policy (colonialism) over
the past centuries has created the situation we find ourselves in. When you
create the conditions for cancer to prosper then you have to deal with the
consequences. Instead of altering our policies we double up on them and then
wonder why people hate us. We create conditions where people have nothing to
lose (for example Iraq/Syria) and their only options are to fall back into
impulsive/conformist organizational structures because that gives them some
sort of security and purpose. Too many people have been ostracized by the
contemporary world and we do nothing to help them, instead our political
policy is to kick them while they are down.

In my mind what David Cameron represents is as toxic as what ISIS represent
however since it affects me much more in my daily life I would say it is a far
greater danger to my way of life than ISIS will ever be.

~~~
vixen99
Can you give an example of the 'far greater danger' to you in your daily life?

~~~
rorykoehler
The Great Recession....

------
PythonicAlpha
Similar thing here in Germany: Government brought up the so called
"Vorratsdatenspeicherung" (data preservation law) again, only to prevent
terrorist attacks. Similar laws where cancelled by our
"Bundesverfassungsgericht" (German constitutional court) and also at the EuGH
(EU constitutional court).

But still they brought it up again, because "the terrorist danger is so high"
... and of course they said, that the data will _only_ (we promise!) be used
in these cases.

Now, short time before the law shall be passed (it should be rushed threw the
parliament, of course!), they added some additions to the law, that the data
can be also used at _any_ crimes committed in the internet. That is exactly,
what was criticized by our constitutional courts before.

The law makers try to install such laws again and again. They are not
interested, whether it is constitutional or not. When they fail, they wait for
the next terror activity and bring up the same bullshit again.

That is the reason, why I come to believe, that our democratic systems are
bound to fail (again). With so few people caring about our constitutional
rights, we will loose them.

The lack of care for the constitution allowed it, that the NSDAP "legally"
changed a democracy to a dictatorship once before. It can happen again -- in
any country.

------
aidanhs
I've tried reading the circular [1] (which seems to be a summary of the
changes) and can't see anything about immunity. The article also lacks direct
quotes or links to relevant sections.

Does anyone have more specific source on this detail?

Edit: this factsheet [2] on the computer misuse amendments only mentions a
clarification that investigation may be performed against UK citizens even if
they're located outside the UK at the time of the crime. No mention of
immunity or extra powers.

[1]
[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417131/20150325SeriousCrimeActCircular.pdf)

[2]
[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415953/Factsheet_-
_Computer_Misuse_-_Act.pdf)

~~~
lambada
Here's the section of legislation in question.

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/44/prospe...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/44/prospective#section-44-2-a)

Specifically it turns

Section 1(1) [Unauthorized access offence definition] above has effect without
prejudice to the operation— (a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating
to powers of inspection, search or seizure; and [...]

into

Sections 1 to 3A [Unauthorized access / access with a view to further offences
/ access with intent to impair / making or supplying artefacts to enable the
above] have effect without prejudice to the operation— (a)in England and Wales
of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure or of any
other enactment by virtue of which the conduct in question is authorised or
required ; and [...]

The governments position is that this change (I believe this is the right one
anyway) gives ordinary rank-and-file GCHQ officers immunity from hacking
offences because their conduct will be 'authorized' (by the government) and
'required' (to protect us from the Bad Guys). Previously what was permissible
under the Act could be construed to be tighter than what GCHQ were doing -
were they only inspecting searching and seizing? Certainly before the Act
didn't give them explicit immunity from the later offences such as intent to
impair the system.

Side note 1: Enactment is defined in a legal sense, to mean pretty much any
legislation. I'm unusure as to whther the definition it provides allows for
e.g. Statutory Instruments (which rarely have any debate in Parliament) to
also be covered under the definition.

Side note 2: It also makes the same changes to Scotland, which for legal
reasons, tends to get called out in separate subsections with minor variation
on the wording if the Act applies at all.

Obviously, IANAL.

------
freddealmeida
It must be clear, at least to those who understand, that no democracy can
exist with two laws to govern the same act. One for the people and one for
those in power. It comes as a sad conclusion that the UK is in actuality truly
an oligarchy. It is not only time to see how long it takes the population to
realize how horrible that is.

~~~
kropotkinlives
You're right.

However don't expect any sympathy from those of us who do understand and have
fought against it where possible any more. The citizens of the UK have hanged
themselves over and over again simply due to idiocy, media induced hatred,
class war and nationalism.

We deserve this fate.

If you want to make a difference now, it's best to do it from the inside as
the political winds cannot be stopped. Sabotage is the only answer.

~~~
aagha
What are you calling for w/ "sabotage"? Non-violent protests? Civil
disobedience? More?

~~~
kropotkinlives
Neither.

Just get a job at GCHQ and proudly do a bad job.

------
bediger4000
The article doesn't touch on snooping "privileged" conversations, like
attorney/client, which are typically considered legally sacrosanct, but GCHQ
is known to have listened to. How are UK attornies (forgive me, I don't know
the correct term) taking that? How are the judges taking it? Does this
"secretly introduced" legislation make that legal as well?

At what point does "secretly introduced" legislation become anything other
than tyranny? I would think very rapidly, but what do I know?

~~~
rmc
> How are UK attornies (forgive me, I don't know the correct term)

UK has solicitors and barristers.

~~~
arethuza
Scotland has solicitors and advocates - although some solicitors can also
appear in the higher courts (Court of Session for civil matters and the High
Court for criminal).

~~~
rmc
_Just_ after I wrote that, I thought "I'm pretty sure Scotland has advocates,
maybe I should update my comment."

------
higherpurpose
Isn't this what they call a "secret law"? UK citizens should be in the streets
over this. Completely unacceptable for any democracy.

~~~
anon1385
Well, people have been out in the streets over the last couple of weeks over a
variety of issues. The difficulty is that there was just a general election
where the Tories won a majority of seats and got the largest share of the
popular vote. The vast majority of things the new government has proposed
doing are things that they were quite open about before the election (or which
any politically aware person could have predicted that they would do).

So the media narrative is basically just 'sore losers on the left', and there
is some justification for that - a lot of people in the country clearly
support these kinds of policies.

~~~
noir_lord
<37% of the total vote though and they get a majority in parliament.

Our system is hopelessly broken and getting the politicians to fix it would be
like getting the turkeys to vote for Christmas.

~~~
gsnedders
Eh, the last time any single party got the majority of the popular vote was
the 1931 general election — and then a coalition National Government was
formed regardless. The last time the Government got the majority of the
popular vote was 2010, and before that Churchill's wartime coalition.

The Tories got a larger proportion of the total vote than Labour did in 2005
(35.2%), and I don't remember hearing much uproar about that.

~~~
noir_lord
The degree of uproar is independent of how hopelessly broken our (meaning the
UK) system is though.

FPTP is demonstrably unfair but as I said turkeys voting for Christmas.

------
coldcode
Yet again the meme continues: George Orwell did not write 1984 as a design
document.

------
DigitalSea
If only George Orwell could see us now.

