
Details of UK website visits 'to be stored for year' - eosis
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34715872
======
pjc50
Has now been published in draft:

[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473770/Draft_Investigatory_Powers_Bill.pdf)

No explicit ban on encryption, but the existing RIPA obligation to decrypt
when you have the capability and are made to. Potential madness in the
"Equipment interference" section, although the bill claims this is already
authorised under different legislation.

The Bill uses "communications data" to mean what we would call "metadata", ie
everything except the contents.

"Equipment interference allows the security and intelligence agencies, law
enforcement and the armed forces to interfere with electronic equipment such
as computers and smartphones in order to obtain data, such as communications
from a device. Equipment interference encompasses a wide range of activity
from remote access to computers to downloading covertly the contents of a
mobile phone during a search."

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
The irony - if that's the word - is that a site visit history is largely
useless as metadata.

Only the most stupid people are going to visit
"verydangerousterrorismsite.com" without going through a VPN. And visits to
Facebook or Google are just noise without the details.

It's hard not to suspect that the real reason for the legislation is to
legitimise dissident profiling, voter sentiment analysis, and thoughtcrime
tracking.

I'm expecting an attempt to ban personal use of VPNs (without a commercial
license) by around 2020.

~~~
toyg
"Largely useless" only to fight external threats. As you say, it's
_invaluable_ for controlling internal dissent and abuse the system. Knowledge
of a visit to AshleyMadison or YouPorn becomes instant blackmail material,
regardless of contents.

Note for Eurosceptics: you know what the last bastion against this autocratic
movement is? Yup, the European Court of Justice, backed by all those highly-
worded treaties. Lose that, and you'll get back being hostage of your national
elites.

~~~
MistahKoala
_you know what the last bastion against this autocratic movement is? Yup, the
European Court of Justice, backed by all those highly-worded treaties. Lose
that, and you 'll get back being hostage of your national elites._

Yet here we are, anyway.

Remind me which government gave us the Data Retention Directive?

~~~
toyg
And which tribunal struck it down?

From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive)
:

 _> On 8 April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the
Directive invalid in response to a case brought by Digital Rights Ireland
against the Irish authorities and others._

If the Snooper's Charter makes it through, the ECJ is the only hope to strike
it down _and keep it down_ , considering how Labour is hardly free of
authoritarian tendencies. That's the truth, as uncomfortable as it might be
for eurosceptics.

~~~
MistahKoala
_And which tribunal struck it down?_

Only several years late, of course. It's a bit weak to suggest that the EU is
our saviour when it comes surveillance.

I'd rather place my faith in the ECtHR.

~~~
toyg
No, I'm just saying that removing the EU layer you lose another chance of
fighting against the current (and/or future) wave of power-crazy national
elites.

~~~
MistahKoala
I don't see how a supranational government is any better than a national one,
though. If anything, they're more remote and intransigent, and pretty much
have a revolving door between the two. I trust neither when it comes to this
issue.

~~~
toyg
The EU is historically influenced by "virtuous" countries, which have little
interest in signing bad laws; "bad" countries benefit as a result. The
European Parliament, with its proportional representation system and loose
alliances, can often be more easily influenced on big, visible issues, than
the hardcore-conservative first-past-post Westminster (where party loyalty is
paramount).

The EU is not perfect (the Commission in particular is the root of a lot of
"evil" activity), but if you believe in checks and balances, it's yet another
power you can appeal to when things look dire on the home front.

------
rajadigopula
Check the live page - [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-
politics-34719194](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34719194)

8:40 'Security risk' of storing communications data "A new law to govern how
police and intelligence agencies and the state can access communications and
data will be published today.

Preston Byrne from Eris Industries, a cryptographic communications company
which is withdrawing from the UK because of the proposed law, says the
government is going to be tracking metadata which is essentially "a map of
what you're thinking".

He warns the data could be compromised - citing the recent TalkTalk hack - and
says this could lead to blackmail. And he argues that ______criminals and
terrorists " don't use normal communication channels" so only the law-abiding
people will be affected by the bill. __ __ __"

Preston Byrne has a point.. even common people are using VPNs and TORs. How
come the terrorists bare their communications for surveillance?

~~~
Spearchucker
" _...he argues that criminals and terrorists " don't use normal communication
channels..._"

That part is true, and is known to government, the public (not at large, but
it's no secret) and criminals.

The problem is a simple one, and identity checks at borders are a good
example. You ask non-nationals, for example, to fill in a landing card to
indicate where the traveller is staying during his or her visit.

If left blank the traveller is interrogated and risks deportation. If however
the traveller lies and provides _any_ plausible address, be it hotel or
residential, he or she is allowed through without suspicion.

The manpower doesn't exist to verify these details. The technology doesn't
exist that verifies these details.

The net result is that technical solutions will only catch stupid people. The
outliers, the ones you _really_ want, know how to game the system and don't
get caught. No matter how much snooping, back-dooring, breaking of encryption
or other nefarious thing is done.

It's economics + psychology. You spend what you have to ensure you cover 99%
of the problem. The remaining 1% requires 1 or more orders of magnitude of
resource to catch, which is simply not viable.

~~~
toyg
_> The manpower doesn't exist to verify these details. _

No, but that's not the point. The point is having yet another data point they
can use to incriminate you, regardless of the actual crime they decide you
must have committed. Say, you declare you'll stay at this hotel for a week,
but actually check out after a day to [go sell drugs || see-sight in another
city]; if they decide you must have been selling drugs, even though they can't
prove it, they can get you for lying on your entry paper.

The more laws and regulations you have, the easier it is to punish anyone
regardless of whether they can prove bad things actually happened. It's a
degeneration of the "Capone" approach, and it's extremely common in
authoritarian regimes. The fact that this sort of pointless law is becoming
quite common across the EU is a worrying trend.

~~~
Spearchucker
I agree it's not the point. It is one of many root causes though. It's a very
interesting root cause because that economical situation gives authoritarian
regimes, as you call them, the power to be authoritarian.

As an aside, while I used to be hugely concerned about this state of affairs,
I am less so now. Maybe because I'm older and know a lot more than I used to.
They may have the ability to "punish anyone", but not everyone. And while it
is becoming more common in the EU, it is already fact in the US.

My reality is that I am unwilling to do anything about this situation, because
I'm already devoting my time to other things - things I know I can influence.
If I'm unwilling to do anything, I'm also technically disqualifying myself
from advocating a course of action.

------
dtf
The current UK government has committed to:

    
    
      1. ban encryption (any encryption worth its salt)
      2. ban anything psychoactive
      3. detach us from the European Convention of Human Rights.
    

Not one of these things is achievable in practice. This posturing and will
amount to nothing but farce in the face of the details.

~~~
cryoshon
They also have banned some forms of pornography. The UK government has made it
a priority to restrict and intrusively scrutinize the lives of its citizens,
removing their ability to resist.

They're rapidly arriving at fascism. The public seems listlessly along for the
ride, as usual.

~~~
MistahKoala
_They also have banned some forms of pornography_

Which ones? The only one I'm aware of is revenge porn (with intent to cause
distress).

~~~
dreamdu5t
Any material judged to be obscene under the current interpretation of the
Obscene Publications Act 1959 (could include bestiality, bondage, rape
simulation, etc.) People have even been charged for _writing stories_ , though
I don't think anyone has ever been successfully prosecuted
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Walker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Walker))

~~~
MistahKoala
How on earth can that act be deemed as this government banning 'some forms of
pornography'? Even R v Walker is 2009 - a year before even the last
government. Although UK production and distribution of some acts were banned
last year, the pre-Coalition governments were far more draconian with their
criminalisation of certain material involving consenting adults.

------
madaxe_again
The BBC is being a good state mouthpiece today - the fact that they're quoting
May as saying it doesn't hold previously contentious matters (I.e. Breaking
encryption) is disingenuous to say the least. The bill will say that
"unbreakable" encryption is illegal - which means all encryption, as if it's
breakable, well, it's not really encrypted, is it.

Never mind that this is totally unenforceable. I could write up a one time pad
with pen and paper. Most won't. Crooked cops will sell data. They'll blame
"hackers".

You only need look at the talktalk debacle to see how incredibly warped this
govt's views are - they haven't arrested anyone at talktalk, who are tge ones
who had such poor infosec that script kiddies could blow them wide open.
Instead they're arresting children.

Oh, and I'm seriouslt considering redomiciling my company - we only contribute
a few hundred million quid to the UK economy.

~~~
tomblomfield
The bill _will not_ say unbreakable encryption is illegal.

I've heard from sources inside the government that their intention is to
maintain the legal status-quo dating from RIPA 2000. Which is to say that
service providers have to disclose personal communications where _reasonably
practicable_.

Since it's not possible for service providers to break end-to-end encryption,
they will have a defence. Obviously this is a bit of a fudge and the position
may need clarifying in court. But it's not the intention of this bill to
change the legal status quo.

~~~
toyg
_> it's not the intention of this bill to change the legal status quo._

If they didn't mean to change the status quo, they wouldn't have introduced a
bill.

As it happens, they _do_ want to change the status quo, _by making clearly
acceptable for authorities to eavesdrop_ , something that was, er, technically
illegal before, despite them doing it anyway.

So instead of punishing spooks for breaking the law, they're changing the law.
Easy, innit?

~~~
d_theorist
>If they didn't mean to change the status quo, they wouldn't have introduced a
bill.

Just strictly on this point, sometimes bills (or parts of bills) are
introduced to clarify existing law. It may be a matter of subtle semantics,
but this is often what is meant when it is claimed that a bill will not change
the law.

~~~
toyg
Well, in this case the proposed act will basically supersede the Human Rights
Act, by excluding authorities from respecting its article 8 ("Right to
Privacy"), under which they've been repeatedly challenged (and defeated) since
Snowden's revelations. Which is really a change in law, not a clarification.

So yeah, what they really need is a _change_ , because current law is _very_
clear that what they do is illegal.

~~~
pjc50
No, it doesn't (and can't) supercede the HRA; there is actually no mechanism
in UK law for doing that other than explicit repeal (Factortame principle).

And article 8 has an ill-specified "national security" exemption.
[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-
in...](http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-
index/article-8-of-the-echr/)

------
AshleysBrain
To me (a UK citizen) this is like the government tracking the title and author
of every book I read, "but don't worry, not the contents or page numbers you
looked at". The idea this is any meaningful barrier to finding out what you're
really up to is ridiculous. Phone metadata is one thing - and still highly
revealing - but much of the web is public! It's enough to make me think twice
about where I browse, wondering "if I ever got challenged over it, how will it
look that I browsed to this site?". That seems pretty harmful to the web -
possibly even in an economically measurable way?

~~~
p01926
Think about what happens when you hit theverge.com: 40-odd requests sent sites
you've never heard of. So-called internet connection records are a huge mess
of noise even without considering obfuscation.

It is trivial for anyone to embed hidden iframes or send silent ajax requests
to child abuse and terrorist forums without giving the visiter the slightest
clue what's happening. In the case of iframes, there would probably be cached
'evidence' left on the target's pc. Try explaining that as your defence in
court when you get set up by some script kiddie.

~~~
ino
If they want to frame you they don't need hidden iframes and stuff. They can
just manufacture it. Because it's all secret/confidential, someone who has a
friend or pays someone inside can incriminate someone and make his life a
hell.

We were warned of PIDE in school for a good reason (PIDE was the Portuguese
Stasi). People will abuse it.

------
ejrowley
There is a lot of Tory bashing going on here but this policy runs deeper,
Labour tried to put through similar legislation. The coalition dropped it but
is back. Each Home Secretary seems to become more hard line and blinkered,
like they are being poisoned by the fear emanating from the security services.

~~~
timthorn
Indeed, one of the strongest critics (David Davis) is a Conservative and
resigned his position as Shadow Home Secretary and MP under the Labour
government to protest and highlight the issues.

------
5h
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-34715872)

^ fixed link

------
lmorris84
My first reaction to this was that VPN usage will explode, but I'm not sure
how a VPN server hosted in another country would work with their desire to
effectively ban encryption.

I feel like the UK is slowly goose stepping its way to a Chinese style
firewall.

Given the right's obsession with what I'm ordering on Amazon, and the left
being essentially unelectable right now, I'm not really sure where to put my
vote at the next election.

~~~
gmac
Corbyn: so "unelectable", he got elected Labour leader. If you don't like the
idea of electing Corbyn, don't vote for him, but don't let his
"unelectability" put you off.

~~~
untog
Appealing to Labour voters who vote in leadership elections is _not_ the same
as being elected by the general population to be Prime Minister, by any
stretch.

~~~
richmarr
True, but the electoral logic that says Labour must be a centre-right party to
get elected is the electoral logic of 1997, mixed with a heady selection of
conscious and unconscious biases.

In reality I don't think anybody is qualified to state as fact that Corbyn is
"unelectable". To me it's much more likely a statement intended to influence
rather than inform.

------
J-dawg
What practical steps can we take if this becomes law? If police and local
councils are given access to browsing records, abuse is inevitable.

There are already well-documented examples of councils using terrorism
legislation to spy on people 1)suspected of using the wrong type of rubbish
bin [1] 2)sending their children to school outside of their catchment area.
[2]

This type of abuse and overreach will happen frequently. Not to mention
crooked police/council officials selling data, and others pursuing personal
vendettas & checking up on current and former romantic partners.

The UK will become a horrible, paranoid place.

What can I do to protect myself? Use a VPN for all internet access? Use Tor
(which seems too slow for most practical purposes)? What else can we do?

[1] [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)

[2] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/7922427...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/7922427/Councils-warned-over-unlawful-spying-using-anti-terror-
legislation.html)

EDIT: added links to sources

~~~
infinity0
These days, Tor is not slow for practical purposes (except maybe for low-
latency things like online gaming). Use it, it pisses GCHQ off quite a lot. :)

~~~
vixen99
I don't think you actually know that it 'pisses GCHQ off quite a lot'. Public
news about this can be misleading on purpose. Perhaps the cunning plan is to
frighten those with something to hide into using Tor for which (who knows?)
they have developed tracking techniques via a variety of approaches. If true,
they'd be crazy to make that public. Herd your mice along the Tor route by
discouraging use of the non encrypted internet.

All irrelevant really since anyone can arrange to communicate via an innocuous
looking one-time pad whatever the weather irrespective of any possible moves
that a government can make short of shutting everything down!

------
JamesBaxter
What is the best way for me as a UK citizen to try and fight this? Just keep
donating to the EFF? Talk to my local MP?

~~~
ionised
Enough voters are so easily led by fear and minsinformation that I'm starting
to think that there is nothing at all we can do.

I am a member of the Open Rights Group. I make monthly donations and attend
their conferences. I petition and write to MPs and MEPs and nothing works. I
don't even get replies.

Which is why I am now considering moving out of the country. I'm currently
weighing up my options.

There is very little about Britain, its politics and the majority of the
voterbase that I have anything in common with, apart from being born on the
same patch of dirt.

~~~
millak
My (Canadian) wife is proposing that we emigrate to Canada in the medium-term
- I'm inclined to agree with her for the same reasons that you give.

~~~
swombat
Iceland seems to be pretty awesome from a political point of view. And it's
still close to most European cities.

~~~
toyg
Effing cold though... and right when UK weather had got a bit more tolerable
for us Meds (thank you, El Niño!)

------
ComputerGuru
Flagged because 404. Correct link:

Surveillance bill to include internet records storage
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-34715872)

------
tomtoise
"For more intrusive surveillance - involving the detailed content of the
communications - security services need to obtain a warrant."

The way this is worded makes me wonder if the 'detailed content' will be
harvested with everything else and then retroactively looked at with a
warrant.

~~~
nthcolumn
Yes, they are going to carry on doing exactly that. Who knows whether they
will bother with the warrants even. It never stopped them before.

Paedophiles! Terrorists! Criminals! Oh My!

~~~
madaxe_again
Don't forget bears, the most dangerous of all online predators.

------
elcct
By their (lack of) logic, they should also have an officer following every
citizen and logging where people go, so that they can know John left his house
at 9:17 and checked in at local grocery shop at 9:28. With a warrant they
could then obtain information that he has bought a large cucumber - let's
arrest him, because he is probably cheating on the government with cucumber.
He told the grocer, that how government fucks him is not making him satisfied,
so he has to finish the job with a cucumber.

~~~
suvelx
We should also ban alleyways, as criminals can hide in them too.

Also noisy pubs and bars, because they provide an excellent environment for
criminals to converse without people overhearing them.

And possibly the postal service, because criminals can use them to send
messages, explosives, drugs and children to other criminals, without the
police knowing the approximate contents of the communications.

~~~
anonymousDan
I also think we need to take the obvious step to prevent pedophiles - ban
children.

------
d4nt
I read the article, but I'm no clearer on what the criteria for issuing a
warrant is.

A few years ago it seemed like the answer was "because TERRORISTS", now
they're also talking about organised crime and child abusers.

This government have already branded the leader of the opposition a 'treat to
national security'. Which leads me to concluded that they are either lying,
incompetent, or reading all his internet history too.

Furthermore, I've heard no compelling arguments as to why the idea of an
independent judiciary (who should be the only people who can issue these
warrants) is broken, or how it should not apply when it comes to the online
world.

But the drip drip drip of obfuscated and fear motivated erosions to the
balance of powers continues, and it's making me deeply worried about what kind
of country my grandchildren will live in.

------
mhandley
If we can't get privacy using crypto, we could always use chaffing to make
their database useless. We just need a list of sensitive websites that want to
hide their true users, and an ad-serving network that randomly serves up links
to those sensitive websites on other web pages (but doesn't display them). In
this way, everyone's browsing history will look suspicious, so the data won't
be of any use.

------
heN5Yu0EhKra
> _" Such data would consist of a basic domain address, and not a full
> browsing history of pages within that site or search terms entered."_

Am I right in understanding they will have access to this data without a
warrant? And then any 'further' data would then need a warrant.

> _" For more intrusive surveillance - involving the detailed content of the
> communications - security services need to obtain a warrant."_

So with more and more websites using https, where does this 'detailed content'
come from? Is the Government expecting ISPs to collect data that doesn't
exist? As far as I was aware, as long as you view a website in HTTPS, there
was no way your ISP knew what individual pages you are visiting.

~~~
madaxe_again
The full text hasn't been released yet - just going on statements over the
last few days. It's likely that you'll have to give the government your
private keys, or be able to decrypt any encrypted communication that passes
through your network.

Again, it's likely unenforceable, in no small part as there's no such thing as
a "communications provider", which is the term they keep on using. Skype,
Apple, etc., don't work in a vacuum - data transits via peers (are they
communications providers?), your computer (is that a communications
provider?), your ISP (they're almost certainly a communications provider), and
so-on.

The purpose of this bill is likely to break large tech corps, rather than
smaller operators, but it could also have the effect of essentially closing
the technology market to all but large operators who can afford to be
compliant.

~~~
timthorn
The term "communications provider" is defined under UK law, though the
practical meaning of the term is less clear: [http://aa.net.uk/legal-
cp.html](http://aa.net.uk/legal-cp.html)

------
mtgx
It's much worse than that. They want to ban companies from offering encryption
that they can't also decrypt.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-
uk/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-
uk/11970391/Internet-firms-to-be-banned-from-offering-out-of-reach-
communications-under-new-laws.html)

Also, in regards to data retention - I thought the CJEU made it clear that
it's against the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Is UK seriously pretending
that never happened? It seems their strategy is "we'll just use this new law
for 2 years until it gets invalidated, and then we pass a new one that we can
use for another 2 years". And so on and so forth.

U.S. companies, please stop establishing headquarters in the U.K. It's on an
authoritarian path as much as Russia and Turkey is (certainly under David
Cameron/Conservatives, at least).

~~~
fredley
Presumably this means all passwords need to be stored in plaintext (or two-way
encrypted, which is essentially the same thing at the end of the day)?

------
gregjwild
A perfect storm of incompetence and ill-intentions.

------
venomsnake
Wild conspiracy theory - London is becoming the playground of world elites. So
security is paramount. These bills are not to keep pedophiles at bay but to
prevent some forms of "London spring" of the underclasses or other forms of
physical harm towards your friendly neighborhood billionaire that could damage
real estate prices. The conservatives goal is to make elites know they are
safe here so they could switch to lower profile security details.

I have no better explanation why UK is pushing so hard on its own populace.

~~~
s_kilk
> I have no better explanation why UK is pushing so hard on its own populace.

Maybe the tories are just plain evil?

Maybe there doesn't need to be a grand reason and explanation behind it all,
maybe they just have a hunger for harming others?

~~~
dingaling
The core of legislation is proposed to the Government by the upper echelons of
civil service. Those Permanent Secretaries et al don't change when a new
Government is elected, unlike the US, so they can play a long game.

Here's the current chap at the Home Office,

[https://www.gov.uk/government/people/mark-
sedwill](https://www.gov.uk/government/people/mark-sedwill)

------
chrisfarms
I don't see anywhere in the bill what EXACTLY an Internet Connection Record
is, and since there is no such thing as a standard Internet Connection Record
in any of our existing network infrastructure, I assume this has been left
vague so that it can be extended to whatever they want.

Nor does it define the exact kind of Internet Service Provider that the law is
suppose to be enforced against. (Is this only suppose to apply to those
supplying bandwidth or do all websites/services count?).

> Law enforcement agencies would not be able to make a request for the purpose
> of determining – for example – whether someone had visited a mental health
> website, a medical website or even a news website.

This seems to imply that there must be a whitelist of domains for which ICR
collection is required. But there is no mention of such a list nor how it
would be curated.

------
Firefishy
Having the govt require ISPs to collect this data about us will result in ISPs
"aggregating" the data and selling it to advertising / marketing firms,
insurers or anyone willing to cough up a few £ for your private data.

~~~
Firefishy
And before you say that will never happen read giffgaff (cellphone company)
privacy policy: [https://www.giffgaff.com/boiler-
plate/privacy](https://www.giffgaff.com/boiler-plate/privacy)

Section "3\. The information we collect" then "5.iv. To third parties from
whom you have chosen to receive marketing information."...

Which means they can give your browsing history, numbers you call etc to any
company who you have agreed to receive marketing information from. Eg: Tesco
Club Card, that-random-website-you-forgot-to-untick-the-box-on.com etc.

------
glomph
>The draft bill also places a legal duty on British companies to help law
enforcement agencies hack devices to acquire information if it is reasonably
practical to do so.

WTF!

------
logingone
To guard against terror. Terror coming from a certain group of people, we are
pushed to choose between living without potential terrorists, and without the
stasi, or with the potential terrorists, and with the stasi. Stasi and
multiculturalism - both or neither.

------
tonylemesmer
The way it is reported it makes it almost sound like this is the current state
of affairs. Thus a feeling of "no need to fight it, its already implemented".

Am I right in thinking this is a proposal that is yet to be passed into law?

------
tonylemesmer
Presumably "internet connection records" also includes any requests sent by
IoT devices. So all that data will be searchable too.

------
andrew_wc_brown
What a great story ===> page not found. <===

------
darkhorn
Why you are voting to those idiots? This is very bad for the British economy.
Now miney will flow to the Swiss VPNs.

------
hittaruki
What is wrong with UK these days?

There is a lot of these kind of news coming out of UK in the last few months.

~~~
anon1385
The right wing party (Conservatives aka Tories) just won a general election in
May and now have a majority for the first time since 1997. They have been in
power since 2010 but were moderated to some extent (at least on these kinds of
issues) by needing to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

So they are now moving forwards with a bunch of things like this that they
wanted to do previously but were unable. See also: repealing human rights
legislation.

It's worth pointing out that they only got 37% of the votes, but ended up with
just over 50% of the seats in parliament because of the first past the post
system. So the majority of people in the UK don't agree with them.

~~~
OJFord

        > So the majority of people in the UK don't agree with them.
    

It's also "worth pointing out" that a majority government is exceedingly
rarely formed from >50% raw votes.

You also cannot infer that the majority of people disagree with them. By
making the subject "the majority of people" you could imply that the British
public agrees with no one party. Which would be correct.

But the Conservative Party forms HM Government at present because more "agree
with them" than with any other party.

It sounds like you're proposing a system where we're perpetually under a
coalition government to ensure that enough MPs to represent 50% raw votes are
involved. No thanks.

~~~
anon1385
>You also cannot infer that the majority of people disagree with them.

The majority of people voted for non-Tory politicians.

>It sounds like you're proposing a system where we're perpetually under a
coalition government to ensure that enough MPs to represent 50% raw votes are
involved. No thanks.

I'm not at all sympathetic to your argument. Especially when the Tories said
that a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in 2010 would have been illegitimate since it
didn't have over 50% of the popular vote. What's so bad about coalition
government anyway?

In 2015 the Tories got 36.8% of the vote and ended up with 330 seats (50.8%).
Labour got 30.5% of the vote and got 232 seats (35.7%). The SNP got 4.7% of
votes for 8.6% of seats. UKIP got 12.7% of votes for 1 seat. The Lib Dems got
7.9% of votes and 1.2% of seats. The Greens 3.8% of votes for 1 seat.

So you have a situation where 24.4% of the voters are represented by only 10
seats, which is only 1.5% of the seats! That kind of democratic deficit isn't
sustainable.

------
darkhorn
Oh, you always have something to learn from the communist China or opressiveve
Syria.

------
edgall
So basically the UK wants to become Google but instead of tracking users to
improve products, they will be tracking everyone to catch criminals.

Imagine a full list of sites you visit being stored by your ISP and now
available to your government when necessary. Wow.

Does this mean users will be flagged automatically if they visit sites that
offer pirated software/movies and the like?

~~~
swombat
It is worrying when a private company has access to this sort of information.

It is urgently alarming when a government has access to that same information.

Governments have a long, proven history of abusing that information in ways
that result in undermining of democracy, immoral imprisonment of political
opponents, mass murder and genocide, and other niceties.

Governments should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.

