new UK bill called RIPA, if passed to allow the goverment access to our web data.

here is the bbc news article on the story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18439226

the short version is that the government want's to keep all our web data for a year, so they can check for criminal activity. I see this as being a very bad bill as it is very invasive to our privacy and goes against web freedom, as well as the predictions being that it won't be very effective at combating crime and will force internet providers to charge more

if you wish to oppose it with me then the best way is probably to read up on the bill and email you'r concern's to your representative, your local MP would be a good place to start and can be found here http://www.writetothem.com/?keyword=local%20mp&creativeid=605235399&gclid=CI6z9rf0zrACFdKBfAod7HHPYA

thank you for any support in opposing this bill.

for discussion value, are you for or against this bill and why?

I don't really have anything to say other than Theresa May can go sit on something hard and sandpapery.

I get the feeling that they're partly going for media attention on this to bury all the recent bad news they've been getting. But yeah, this bill will absolutely suck if it gets passed, and is probably going to result in me signing up for a VPN whatever happens, because I'm sick of stuff like this coming through.

Theresa May is also probably the one politician that has really got to me over the last decade. I almost hate her as much as Nick Clegg, and that's saying something.

Esotera:
I get the feeling that they're partly going for media attention on this to bury all the recent bad news they've been getting. But yeah, this bill will absolutely suck if it gets passed, and is probably going to result in me signing up for a VPN whatever happens, because I'm sick of stuff like this coming through.

Theresa May is also probably the one politician that has really got to me over the last decade. I almost hate her as much as Nick Clegg, and that's saying something.

Yeah, i'll also be using a proxy if this goes through. It's a complete invasion of privacy. Until it's legal to put cameras and mics in my house, they can get the fuck off of my internet useage!
Luckily, I can't see it getting through the house of lords without a serious dilution of powers - they hate this kind of stuff at the best of times.

Politicians that have gotten to me most? Theresa May, Keith Vaz, Galloway, and Osbourne.

This bill is mandated by the EU. If the UK doesn't introduce it it'll have to pay a fifty thousand euros fine every month until they do. Germany is in a similar situation except they chose to pay the fine. Go Germany I guess.

BBC:
Civil liberty groups and ISPs have voiced concerns over the newly-published draft communications bill.

The controversial bill extends the type of data that internet service providers must keep.

The government said that updated legislation to take account of new technology was vital in the fight against criminals and terrorists.

But activists have dubbed it a snooper's charter.

"This is all about giving the police unsupervised access to data. It is shocking for a government that opposed Labour's plans on this to propose virtually the same thing," said Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group.

"It will cost billions of pounds and will end up only catching the stupid or the innocent. Terrorists will circumvent it."

Publishing the bill, Home Secretary Theresa May said: "Communications data saves lives. It is a vital tool for the police to catch criminals and to protect children.

"If we stand by as technology changes, we will leave police officers fighting crime with one hand tied behind their backs.

She was keen to point out that the proposals do not include reading the content of websites, email or social networks.

"Checking communication records, not content, is a crucial part of day-to-day policing and the fingerprinting of the modern age - we are determined to ensure its continued availability in cracking down on crime," she said.

But Mr Killock argues that knowing where a citizen has been online is equally intrusive.

Drawing a parallel he said: "If I'm having an affair then who I'm talking to is just as revealing as what I say," he said.
Technically feasible

The bill - an update to the controversial RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) legislation - lays out new duties for the UK communications companies.

The new proposals would require ISPs to keep details of a much wider range of data including use of social network sites, webmail, voice calls over the internet, and gaming. Websites visited could be recorded, although pages within sites would not be.

BT said that it was considering the proposals and would report back to the parliamentary committee in due course.

The Internet Service Providers' Association said that it would be lobbying MPs in the coming months.

"Ispa has concerns about the new powers to require network operators to capture and retain third party communications data," said a spokesman.

"These concerns include the scope and proportionality, privacy and data protection implications and the technical feasibility.

"Whilst we appreciate that technological developments mean that government is looking again at its communications data capabilities, it is important that powers are clear and contain sufficient safeguards," it added.

The bill faces a tough ride through parliament with Lib Dem MPs and some Conservatives calling for it to be watered down or abandoned altogether.

Trevor Pearce, director general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca), warned that any attempts to undermine the legislation would have a direct effect on policing.

"Any significant reduction in the capability of law enforcement agencies to acquire and exploit intercept intelligence and evidential communications data would lead to more unsolved murders, more firearms on our streets, more successful robberies, more unresolved kidnaps, more harm from the use of class A drugs, more illegal immigration and more unsolved serious crime overall.

"This would mean Soca, the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] and other agencies relying more heavily on more expensive, more risky and potentially more intrusive techniques to locate and apprehend offenders."

Soca said that it uses communications data in 95% of the serious crime investigations it conducts.

Protect the Children... you don't get porn unless you type the word porn in...

---------------

Labour tried it. Conservatives stopped it.
Conservatives are trying it. Labour will not back it and the Lib-Dems who are currently in coalition with the Conservatives will vote against it or abstain...

Currently this is only a draft bill and I am pretty confident that unless a terrorist attack occurs and the fickle electorate gets into the Governments pocket again like 9/11 and 7/7 this isn't going to pass.

We've had enough bullshit of this sort with the Olympics and the fact residents have found anti-aircraft missiles on their roofs...

PercyBoleyn:
If the UK doesn't introduce it it'll have to pay a fifty thousand euros fine every month until they do.

...fifty thousand... as in: 50,000?

Bargain. It would cost billions for the ISP's to store all the data anyway.

I doubt that bill will make it. For one thing European privacy legislation and jurisprudence has consistently pointed towards IP adresses, internet data and so on being considered information in the sphere of privacy, much like you don't open and read other people's mail. Secondly, because data retention is going to cost huge amounts of money, and no ISP will get down with that.

Also this is a cross-border monster of a bill that conflicts with other law systems. For instance if I send a file to someone in the UK, and the UK government monitors it, they would be violating Dutch net neutrality law because it's my communications they're intercepting, and monitoring inside of people's net usage is illegal.

Also EU privacy guidelines (EC 96/94, if memory serves) forbid such data retention. There's been a lot of digging in that regard, and it turns out people have the right to demand privacy data about them removed from any database.

And I don't know where Percy got that idea. To my knowledge there's no such thing as a mandatory data retention bill on EU level. Considering the conflicting rulings he's likely misinformed.

PercyBoleyn:
This bill is mandated by the EU. If the UK doesn't introduce it it'll have to pay a fifty thousand euros fine every month until they do. Germany is in a similar situation except they chose to pay the fine. Go Germany I guess.

50k Euros? So, about 40k, times 12 equals about 500k a year.

Seems eminently payable to me. In fact, so cheap, I'm not sure it can be that low. Even at E50k a week, it's only 2million p.a. which is chump change to the UK.

Agema:

50k Euros? So, about 40k, times 12 equals about 500k a year.

Seems eminently payable to me. In fact, so cheap, I'm not sure it can be that low. Even at E50k a week, it's only 2million p.a. which is chump change to the UK.

Yeah, except the EU is very adamant at getting this law passed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/31/net-us-eu-dataprivacy-germany-idUSBRE84U0JM20120531

PercyBoleyn:

Agema:

50k Euros? So, about 40k, times 12 equals about 500k a year.

Seems eminently payable to me. In fact, so cheap, I'm not sure it can be that low. Even at E50k a week, it's only 2million p.a. which is chump change to the UK.

Yeah, except the EU is very adamant at getting this law passed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/31/net-us-eu-dataprivacy-germany-idUSBRE84U0JM20120531

Ugh.. I really like the EU, dont get me wrong. I love it, and I would like to see it grow and prosper and all that but, the current president of the EU Commision just reeks of corruption (Funny since his also from Portugal, they seem to have a problem with this sort of thing over there)

I mean, the guy who approved this is also a guy who had close relations with George Bush (Hosted a small get-together with Commision money). Repaid 10million to a friend of his who lost his Yacht in Greece (Using the Commissions money) And 'still' manages to sit on his post. How, I just wonder. I mean who's in charge of throwing corrupt people out?

What I meant to say was, the guy in charge of the Commision is corrupt. Im certain that there are certain groups (That certainly arent the majority nor should have any authority with the commision) with interrests in this plan, I mean almost every European country is rejecting it yet the Commision is so actively campaigning for it. Cant anyone see anything wrong with this?

But yea, dont compare the Commision to the whole of the EU, you make it sound as if 'all' the other member countries apart from Germany and the UK is completely behind it. As far as I know even the current head of EU's country is against it.

I believe this is a case of Corruption, not stupidity.

PercyBoleyn:
This bill is mandated by the EU. If the UK doesn't introduce it it'll have to pay a fifty thousand euros fine every month until they do. Germany is in a similar situation except they chose to pay the fine. Go Germany I guess.

Really? Well, my pro-EU stance has just taken a bit of a knock... I didn't know they were able to mandate domestic law to such a degree unless it was to do with the Human Rights Act.
Could you elaborate? I appear to have missed something!

PercyBoleyn:
This bill is mandated by the EU. If the UK doesn't introduce it it'll have to pay a fifty thousand euros fine every month until they do. Germany is in a similar situation except they chose to pay the fine. Go Germany I guess.

proof?

I normally believe what people here say and don't take it offensively but that sounds to ridiculous to be true for me and if you could show evidence I would be very greatfull

if this is true it sucks because in our economy and with people favouring austerity at the moment that amount of money is a lot to pay for the sake of 1 bill and this could tip the balance against us.

in some regard I like the EU but some of the decision's they make and have made are borderline retarded, and Britain seems to have very little power in the EU in proportion to how much we support it.

HarryScull:

PercyBoleyn:
This bill is mandated by the EU. If the UK doesn't introduce it it'll have to pay a fifty thousand euros fine every month until they do. Germany is in a similar situation except they chose to pay the fine. Go Germany I guess.

proof?

I normally believe what people here say and don't take it offensively but that sounds to ridiculous to be true for me and if you could show evidence I would be very greatfull

if this is true it sucks because in our economy and with people favouring austerity at the moment that amount of money is a lot to pay for the sake of 1 bill and this could tip the balance against us.

in some regard I like the EU but some of the decision's they make and have made are borderline retarded, and Britain seems to have very little power in the EU in proportion to how much we support it.

PB's already posted a link backing up the Germany bit.

I've not heard a thing about the amendment to RIPA in the UK having anything to do with the EU directive of 2006 though.

Funny how this Eurosceptic government will play along with the EU when it wants.

Oirish_Martin:

I've not heard a thing about the amendment to RIPA in the UK having anything to do with the EU directive of 2006 though.

It seems I've made a mistake, sorry guys. So basically, the UK government adopted the data retention legislation back in 05 after the London bombings and later pushed for its implementation across the entire EU by claiming it was necessary to combat terrorism and crime.

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/data-retention:-whitewash-by-eu-commission

RIPA is an attempt at expanding the original scope of that legislation by forcing ISPs to retain even more data.

PercyBoleyn:

Oirish_Martin:

I've not heard a thing about the amendment to RIPA in the UK having anything to do with the EU directive of 2006 though.

It seems I've made a mistake, sorry guys. So basically, the UK government adopted the data retention legislation back in 05 after the London bombings and later pushed for its implementation across the entire EU by claiming it was necessary to combat terrorism and crime.

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/data-retention:-whitewash-by-eu-commission

RIPA is an attempt at expanding the original scope of that legislation by forcing ISPs to retain even more data.

Right, existing UK data retention standards are entirely optional. The interesting thing is that even if this RIPA amendment doesn't go through, the EU could in theory still put pressure on Britain to make that kind of law a reality here, if Germany is anything to go by.

Oirish_Martin:
Right, existing UK data retention standards are entirely optional. The interesting thing is that even if this RIPA amendment doesn't go through, the EU could in theory still put pressure on Britain to make that kind of law a reality here, if Germany is anything to go by.

They're optional? Then why the hell did the UK push for the EU to adopt mandatory data retention then?

PercyBoleyn:

Oirish_Martin:
Right, existing UK data retention standards are entirely optional. The interesting thing is that even if this RIPA amendment doesn't go through, the EU could in theory still put pressure on Britain to make that kind of law a reality here, if Germany is anything to go by.

They're optional? Then why the hell did the UK push for the EU to adopt mandatory data retention then?

I've no idea - I've given up expecting reasonable actions from UK Home Secs.

I'd love to see all the ISPs just up and change business in response

PercyBoleyn:
Yeah, except the EU is very adamant at getting this law passed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/31/net-us-eu-dataprivacy-germany-idUSBRE84U0JM20120531

That's not true. That mandatory EU retention is the records themselves, not the contents. This potential UK law is about records and contents.

Blablahb:

PercyBoleyn:
Yeah, except the EU is very adamant at getting this law passed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/31/net-us-eu-dataprivacy-germany-idUSBRE84U0JM20120531

That's not true. That mandatory EU retention is the records themselves, not the contents. This potential UK law is about records and contents.

No, it's not, according to May quoted in the article in the OP. Records only, not contents, apparently.

PercyBoleyn:

Oirish_Martin:

I've not heard a thing about the amendment to RIPA in the UK having anything to do with the EU directive of 2006 though.

It seems I've made a mistake, sorry guys. So basically, the UK government adopted the data retention legislation back in 05 after the London bombings and later pushed for its implementation across the entire EU by claiming it was necessary to combat terrorism and crime.

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/data-retention:-whitewash-by-eu-commission

RIPA is an attempt at expanding the original scope of that legislation by forcing ISPs to retain even more data.

So we were hoisted by our own petard. I'm now no longer pissed off at the EU, but have another reason to hate Theresa May and David Blunkett. Great!

It's hilarious though - the Conservatives consistently opposed this kind of act in opposition on the grounds that it was an unacceptable breach of privacy. Now they're the ones pushing the boundaries further. It's really quite a repulsive level of contempt for the electorate.

Oirish_Martin:
No, it's not, according to May quoted in the article in the OP. Records only, not contents, apparently.

Only thing she said in there was;
"Publishing the bill, Home Secretary Theresa May said: Communications data saves lives. It is a vital tool for the police to catch criminals and to protect children."

Nothing about the EU supposedly mandating content retention and inspection. Plus that active scanning of content is a violation of a few EU directives. The new Dutch net neutrality law which explicitly forbid content inspection of any kind also would've been voided if EU regulations demand content inspection, so that can't possibly be the case.

Go three paragraphs further, Blahblahb. And I don't think there is a case so far that the EU is involved in this, but I find it damn queer that the UK coalition government just happens to be heading in that same direction.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked