Snooper's charter to extend police access to phone and internet data

[TomandJerry]

Powers for the police to access everyone’s web browsing histories and to hack into their phones are to be expanded under the latest version of the snooper’s charter legislation.

The extension of police powers contained in the investigatory powers bill published on Tuesday indicates the determination of the home secretary,*Theresa May, to get her controversial legislation on to the statute book by the end of this year in spite of sweeping criticisms by three separate parliamentary committees in the past month.

The bill is designed to provide the first comprehensive legal framework for state surveillance powers anywhere in the world. It has been developed in response to the disclosure of state mass surveillance programmes by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. The government hopes it will win the backing of MPs by the summer and by the House of Lords this autumn.

 

[dingodan]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

 

[heathgate]

They can snoop all they like....Franklin didn't have Internet and global terrorism to contend with.... I have nothing to fear, the checks and balances within the system we live in are enough in my view to provide what I need in terms of security for me and my family.

 

[dingodan]

They can snoop all they like....Franklin didn't have Internet and global terrorism to contend with.... I have nothing to fear, the checks and balances within the system we live in are enough in my view to provide what I need in terms of security for me and my family.

You know, this bill is to codify what they have already been doing for years, illegally, as revealed by Edward Snowden. The "checks and balances" of which you speak were supposed to prevent that from happening.

Global terrorism and the internet do pose security problems, nobody would deny that. But history tells us that so to does a government which will violate the rights of it's citizens in secret.

I genuinely wonder how long it will be until I am not comfortable posting something like this to be honest.

 

[beorhthelm]

You know, this bill is to codify what they have already been doing for years

its also what they've been doing for decades on phone records, and nobody even noticed or cared.

im not in favour of it, but theres a large amount of paranoia attached. its a massive imposition on the ISPs that we the consumer will have to pay for and wont address the issues they want to for security.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Personally I don't like the mentality that having nothing to hide means that the powers should be have carte blanche to monitor who they want, when they want, however they want.

If those that have an interest have no reason to suspect someone, why should access to any of their information be given? I just don't believe that it will be half as affective from a security standpoint as it's being suggested. Not that we'd ever know either way really.

 

[heathgate]

What do you think they are going to do with that info?..... do they care that you are looking a fannies on the Internet. .?.... no.... do they care if it's a 5 year old?... yes.....

Do they care if you slagging off the govt of the day... ? .. no,.. but if you threaten to kill the Chancellor because he is cutting back on your tax or benefit loopholes... then yes they want to know.

 

[TheJasperCo]

What do you think they are going to do with that info?..... do they care that you are looking a fannies on the Internet. .?.... no.... do they care if it's a 5 year old?... yes.....

Do they care if you slagging off the govt of the day... ? .. no,.. but if you threaten to kill the Chancellor because he is cutting back on your tax or benefit loopholes... then yes they want to know.

Question remains: where are the safeguards to ensure that, 6 months, 12 months, 5 years down the line...this will still be the case?

 

[heathgate]

Question remains: where are the safeguards to ensure that, 6 months, 12 months, 5 years down the line...this will still be the case?

What will...if they decide to do something with your browsing history....what would that be.....pass it on to a marketing company?.... I fail to see what you think can happen.... I really do.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Personally I don't like the mentality that having nothing to hide means that the powers should be have carte blanche to monitor who they want, when they want, however they want.

I normally find these sorts of people are the type to try and weasel their way of any difficult situations they might find themselves in.

If you've got nothing to hide then the government should **** right off and leave us alone.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What do you think they are going to do with that info?.....

Hopefully keep it secure. But, the minute it's lost you might be ****ed.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What will...if they decide to do something with your browsing history....what would that be.....pass it on to a marketing company?.... I fail to see what you think can happen.... I really do.

you're browsing history could be valuable to a medical insurer. If you had a recent history of looking up a costly illness or disease then you could have your policy adjusted.

 

[studio150]

The worry is how this is spreading already given the reported story of a school boy being interviewed by the police as the school called them in because he had looked at the ukip website following a lesson which focused on immigration.

The thought police are already up and running

 

[heathgate]

you're browsing history could be valuable to a medical insurer. If you had a recent history of looking up a costly illness or disease then you could have your policy adjusted.

Conspiracy theory HT.... thats unlike you.... and according to most legal systems, to adjust something like an insurance policy, they would need medical evidence. If however you are determined to hide evidence of illness from a medical insurer, then who are you to raise the issue of ethics and best practice?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Conspiracy theory HT.... thats unlike you.... and according to most legal systems, to adjust something like an insurance policy, they would need medical evidence. If however you are determined to hide evidence of illness from a medical insurer, then who are you to raise the issue of ethics and best practice?

It's not a conspiracy at all. There are plenty of cases where insurers are already pushing the boundaries, and sometimes operating in grey areas, to obtain medical information which is highly valuable to their under writing. Here's an example of the grey area https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/ne...t-access-requests-to-see-medical-information/ . Using publicly available, but illegally obtained, data is only a small step beyond this example.

Moving back on topic, if I got hold of your browsing history and plastered it on here, a quick Google search by an insurer could reap dividends and not have broken the law. It's no different to what some employers do after all.

 

[heathgate]

The worry is how this is spreading already given the reported story of a school boy being interviewed by the police as the school called them in because he had looked at the ukip website following a lesson which focused on immigration.

The thought police are already up and running

Not good...but it was the school..
Not a state monitoring system.

 

[heathgate]

It's not a conspiracy at all. There are plenty of cases where insurers are already pushing the boundaries, and sometimes operating in grey areas, to obtain medical information which is highly valuable to their under writing. Here's an example of the grey area https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/ne...t-access-requests-to-see-medical-information/ . Using publicly available, but illegally obtained, data is only a small step beyond this example.

Moving back on topic, if I got hold of your browsing history and plastered it on here, a quick Google search by an insurer could reap dividends and not have broken the law. It's no different to what some employers do after all.

I assume you have read the controls section of this proposal?.... I don't see where the threat is.

Publicly available - illegally obtained ... surely a contradiction ?... how can these be working hand in hand.

 

[desprateseagull]

Surely big brother can get access to emails of (proper) suspects, under current laws?

I do not agree with a sweeping 'let us see everything' law.

 

[heathgate]

Surely big brother can get access to emails of (proper) suspects, under current laws?

I do not agree with a sweeping 'let us see everything' law.

Not even to spot sinister activity trends from people who are not yet on any police radar.... or do you think it's only worth following up once they have already beheaded someone in the street, or organised a bomb in a nice well populated city centre?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not even to spot sinister activity trends from people who are not yet on any police radar.... or do you think it's only worth following up once they have already beheaded someone in the street, or organised a bomb in a nice well populated city centre?

I have to say, you seem a bit unstable yourself. But I'm happy to leave you be.