advertisement


Government internet snooping plans - A step too far?

Even if one was to accept the covert and unaccountable surveillance of innocent citizens as a function of government, which I most certainly do not, the above highlights the practical issues in a nutshell. It's staggeringly clear the likes of May, Cameron etc do not really understand what the internet is, let alone how it works or where it is, so a top down structure from them probably right down to some council ignoramus who writes their password on a post-it note next to the screen have no business playing with anyone elses computers. The spectacular incompetence within state IT infrastructure is a matter of public record, these people need to stay the hell away from ours!

The whole business needs scrutiny from people that really understand if, suppose a whistle blower at MegaCorp points to some wrong doing, a protest group is started to boycott MC, MC uses TTIP to sue the government for loss of earnings. Given the power of lobbying plus TTIP, a media campaign plus intrusive monitoring could snuff out very effectively any form of protest. That is not democracy, there is nothing in place to stop this happening.
 
The spectacular incompetence within state IT infrastructure is a matter of public record, these people need to stay the hell away from ours!

Up to a point, though of course the internet as we know it evolved from state IT infrastructure; i.e. the US Department of Defense and, in the case of the Web, the CERN laboratories.
 
I read that the government are to be given powers to scrutinise everyone's internet browsing history. Interesting that concurrent with this is the announcement that Freedom of Information is to made more difficult by imposing a charge

Interesting contrast I suggest


The same old arguments are wheeled out, viz

1. These measures are for the protection of the public from terrorists

2. Anyone with nothing to hide should have no grounds to object

Personally, I worry every time our privacy and liberty is restricted using these justifications, because almost always, new powers to the authorities are exploited and applied way beyond the boundaries originally stated

Laurie
 
May rules out giving GCHQ to look at users' browsing history, and banning data encryption:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34691956

Security agencies will not be given powers to look at a suspect's website browsing history under new laws, Home Secretary Theresa May has said.

She also told the BBC that companies would not be banned from encrypting data, as she prepares to present a new security bill to Parliament this week.

The bill will allow agencies to see who has spoken to whom, and when.

Former head of GCHQ Sir David Omand has called for internet firms to be forced by law to keep users' browsing history.

He said such data was not for spying on the public but to see "for example, whether a suspect has downloaded a terrorist manual".

The changes to the Investigatory Powers Bill have been welcomed by some, but others said they did not go far enough.

Mrs May told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show that more intrusive powers were available to agencies if a warrant was authorised.

She said she would set out the "very strong" oversight and "world-beating" authorisation arrangements for such warrants when the Investigatory Powers Bill goes before MPs on Wednesday.

Some of the more contentious powers proposed in the Coalition government's 2012 version of this bill have been removed after listening to industry figures and civil liberties' groups, Mrs May said.
 
May rules out giving GCHQ to look at users' browsing history, and banning data encryption:

LOL, I've not been following this too closely yet, but did some Tory belmtard really think you could ban the concept of data encryption? They should ban the moon next. These people should not be trusted with spoons.

PS I'd be curious to know how they actually intended to keep a record of "browsing history". I assume it is little more than the ISP's being asked to retain their DNS server record, which anyone wanting to remain covert wouldn't be using anyway. If she's really expecting ISPs to keep a record of pretty much every TCP/IP packet sent and recieved she is way off out there in cloud cuckoo land.
 
Fortunately, this would not affect me, but I find it rather alarming.

What are the thoughts from the esteemed PFM members?


Oops.....I didn't see your thread

I have grave concerns

If ( some of ) the police had their way they would have cameras and mikes in every room of every house

If some doctors had their way a lot of what we currently do would be banned


Both the above can be justified by the reason that the restrictions on our freedoms proposed are for our benefit and we have no need to worry

Of course there must be some restrictions on individual freedoms but believe that it can easily go too far

Laurie
 
LOL, I've not been following this too closely yet, but did some Tory belmtard really think you could ban the concept of data encryption? They should ban the moon next. These people should not be trusted with spoons.

I think GCHQ provided a wish list that included giving them unlimited access to everyone's data, and May has just ruled out some of the barmiest requests.
 
Yep, the Snoopers Charter is back on the cards, but we're not supposed to be able to ask what persuaded the government to decide to wheel it back out again.

I had hoped 'mother knows best' went out when TB left No.10, but clearly that was a vain hope. Note that the LibDems (those that are left) are not supporting this move to restrict FOI.
 
Yep, the Snoopers Charter is back on the cards, but we're not supposed to be able to ask what persuaded the government to decide to wheel it back out again.

I had hoped 'mother knows best' went out when TB left No.10, but clearly that was a vain hope. Note that the LibDems (those that are left) are not supporting this move to restrict FOI.

Let us hope that it gets defeated in parliament.

FOI enabled the expenses scandal to be unearthed

What irks me most is the contrast here...the double standards that prevail when the government are trying to increase their access to our information , yet at the same time trying to restrict access to theirs

Laurie
 
There is always a contract between the state and the people, whereby the people give up some freedoms (such as the right to murder their rivals, or sleep with their sisters, or keep every penny of their earnings) in return for benefits offered by the state (such as the right not to be murdered by your rivals, or invading hordes of savages; or the right to a measure of care and security and convenience provided by the state).

What seems to have been lost, is any sense of the extent to which we concede the one, and desire the other, nor which we wish the state to prioritise. Dialogue is not possible if people don't listen.
 
Even if one was to accept the covert and unaccountable surveillance of innocent citizens as a function of government, which I most certainly do not, the above highlights the practical issues in a nutshell. It's staggeringly clear the likes of May, Cameron etc do not really understand what the internet is, let alone how it works or where it is, so a top down structure from them probably right down to some council ignoramus who writes their password on a post-it note next to the screen have no business playing with anyone elses computers. The spectacular incompetence within state IT infrastructure is a matter of public record, these people need to stay the hell away from ours!


+ 1

Well said

Laurie
 
There is always a contract between the state and the people, whereby the people give up some freedoms (such as the right to murder their rivals, or sleep with their sisters, or keep every penny of their earnings) in return for benefits offered by the state (such as the right not to be murdered by your rivals, or invading hordes of savages; or the right to a measure of care and security and convenience provided by the state).

What seems to have been lost, is any sense of the extent to which we concede the one, and desire the other, nor which we wish the state to prioritise. Dialogue is not possible if people don't listen.

I agree

My take on this that politicians tend to believe that their role is to continually make new laws

This is their trade...in fact a high proportion of them are lawyers. All trying to make their mark as they look to be promoted

I would suggest that in spite of some of the grandiose, cloying over emotive public statements about public service, most politicians have scant regard for the people that elected them

A good example was the sickening episode with Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind being exonerated by a Parliamentary committee...trust politicians at your peril

Laurie
 
Ironically, it wasn't FOI which opened up the MP's expenses scandal, it was a leak to the Daily Telegraph. The MP's expenses had been refused under FOIA, and that refusal had been upheld by the Information Commissioner's Office on the grounds that the public interest in disclosure was outweighed by the MPs' right to privacy. It took a leak to get the dirt out in the open. It was only when the details were exposed to public scrutiny that the extent of the scandal (and hence, as the ICO would concede, the genuine public interest in disclosure irrespective of MPs' privacy) became clear.

Ironically, then, FOI did offer sufficient protection to confidential government stuff, and still does. It requires a fairly convincing public interest argument to get government policy stuff disclosed, which is as it should be. The ICO misread the public interest balance in the MP's expenses thing, but is broadly (and rightly) sympathetic to arguments about the machinery of government often needing to operate in a safe space.
 


advertisement


Back
Top