Labour: We want the Snoopers' Charter because of Snowden Labour supports the UK government's Investigatory Powers Bill – and it's because NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed GCHQ's mass surveillance, according to the party's Keir Starmer. Starmer, MP for Holborn and St Pancras, said the left-wing party will ask Blighty's Conservative government to conduct an independent review …
> The codes of practice, however, wouldn't be published until bill becomes an act, and as secondary legislation the codes of practice can only be voted for in their entirety.
This alone should be sufficient reason to vote this bill down. Whatever the rules controlling how this is done, they should be debated publicly and MPs should be answerable to the public for what they voted on it, pushing things into secondary legislation just makes it easier to force through unjust laws which would never have passed Parliament as part of a bill
It doesn't take a lot of thinking to see what that EULA is hiding.
1. The ISPs will have a distributed database that can be queried with "filters".
2. Filters (really select statements) will be as broad as possible for each case and use the best possible case examples. It will only take a few of these to grab full take data.
3. The spooks/police will build a big database to receive the results of these filters. (GCHQ already has).
4. This "post-filter" database will be where the real searches happen.
5. The post filter database will permit cross linkage of multiple filter result sets. Thus any limits on the filter will be stripped away. e.g. search ElReg for comments posted by MPs will be trivial because MPs data will be grabbed in a leak-inquiry-filter, and elReg's comments grabbed in a 'threatening-comment-filter' and so the Judge would never approve searching elReg for such comments, but once the data is grabbed into the local database, there's no limits on its use.
@""The current proposal is to sign off on a warrant application by a judge and the secretary of state" explained Starmer, who adding that there were two or three things to note about this."
Except these are *classes* of use, not specific surveillance targets. So what the Home Secretary and Judge are signing off on, is not "can you spy on Jeremy Corbyn for suspected terrorism", but rather "can you grab records for investigating suspected-terrorism-filter". So he signs off on that and they get Corbyns records (and all MPs) with any judicial protection stripped.
It's not a double lock, its more a veneer of judicial cover
Can Keir Starmer give permission to his ISP and we'll see one week of his surfing habits released? When Theresa May was asked, she rejected the request as "vexacious fishing", but that's exactly what it is. There's no requirement to target these filters to a suspect (even a Jane Doe) with evidence showing why their privacy right is to be stripped.
@Tomato42
Indeed, or even Turkey, which has gone all in into authoritarianism, shutting down all media ( and arresting journalists) that are not pro-government. Not a peep from anyone in Europe, in fact Turkey just got 6 billion EUR and a fast-track membership offer.
Interestingly, the justification there is that by being against the current government's policies, they are "supporting terrorism". Funny considering two of those arrested were done so because they exposed Turkey's support for ISIS. So its all a matter of definitions really.
Food for thought, what with all the "anti-terror" laws on the books nowadays, at some point having a non-govt approved opinion may well qualify for application of said laws, especially when the government gets to decide what is terrorism. It happened in Turkey, could it happen here?
Starmer said the party will ask the government to conduct an independent review into the new powers and definitions included in the Investigatory Powers Bill.
Bwahahahahahahahahaaaa! It was Labour that kicked off all of this shit with ID cards and the original Snooper's Charter, they want this as much as the big state control freaks of the Conservative Party.
Oi Starmer! I don't trust you, them, or the state in these grand plans for legalised dragnet surveillance (and storage just in case) of me, my family or my neighbours, so could you, and the vast majority of other parliamentary wastrels FOAD?
"Indeed. If only the Conservatives were in government."
That would indeed be an nightmare.
Well luckily for you they're not, and we've got a bunch of champagne socialists in the NuLabour mould. I know the Grauniadistas are carping on endlessly about "austerity", but if I were spending one billion quid a week more than I earned, would they class that as an austere existence?
"if I were spending one billion quid a week more than I earned, would they class that as an austere existence?"
oh, darling, in Islington? How can you cope on only £1bn a week? Next you'll be saying you need expenses for your children to not stay with you, or to cover the sort of fee-paying school others shouldn't use! Simply terrible.
Me too, i'm disgusted with Labour.
Jeremy Corbyn has become Alexis Tsipras. In other words, a traitor to the people.
If passed into law, and this now seems highly likely, this bill will mandate a data retention regime unprecedented in any "Western democracy".
So we better get used to be treated like we are all criminals. I'm not a criminal of course, but I'm already running a VPN connection on all my devices. (If anyone's interested, personally I've been using a reputable zero-logs provider for over a year now http://www.vpnworld.org/ipvanish ). I just have no desire whatsoever for my "online life" to be stored away on my ISP's servers!
And my ISP is throttling bandwidth, so I actually find that with the VPN connection my internet speeds are faster for browsing and streaming. This is actually logical because my internet traffic is encrypted through the VPN so my ISP can't "read" my activities and thus cannot filter my traffic, and most importantly cannot store any of my online movements.
I think that Edward Snowden should be lauded throughout the free world as a modern hero.
Whatever the result of this bill he has, at least, made us all (for a given value of 'all') aware of what is being done behind the scenes and how the government views the governed.
That alone is valuable information.
I think provable fact is better than a guess - no matter how well founded. It's also a lot harder for governments to ignore said facts and dismiss them as conspiracy theories.
If the US or GB had an ounce of integrity Snowden would be summarily pardoned (by one) or offered asylum (by the other).
It isn't so much what Snowden revealed that has increased awareness, it's the response from the established powers that has raised awareness.
The co-ordinated mass media propaganda machine has started to show too much synchronicity and it reveals it's inner workings by the footprints it leaves.
I really think a lot of people are waking up to this, and one reason (I believe) why Trump is doing so well in America.
I think a lot of U.S. citizens are pissed off being told what to say and think. Along comes someone who says and does what he likes and he gains a bit of support.
However, when the media machine is turned against him and people start to see how they are being manipulated and told not to support Trump, his popularity soars. I think it's an indicator that people are waking up and starting to stand up to the system of control that has been imposed upon them.
Bring it on I say.
I hope you are right - and when the 'Republican Grandees' spoke out against him I expected it to increase his popularity; reinforcing his image as not part of the establishment.
However I fear that a lot of Trump support is based on narrow self-interest and buying into his promise to make America great and get rid of all the immigrants and stop terrorism. I'm aware of the Godwin risk but, in this case, I really do believe the parallels to Hitler are worrying.
However I then comfort myself by believing that Trump is nowhere near as bright as Hitler - which is no doubt how pre-WWII observers comforted themselves when Hitler was seeking election - by comparing him to $ARCHETYPAL_HISTORICAL_BADDY <sad face>.
That's the point, though, they want the activities of the security services to be regulated (which they should be), under a single piece of legislation (rather than many, possibly contradictory pieces with apparent wide loopholes). In principle, this is what this bill could be. However, as drafted by the Tories, it is unsuitable. Labour have made their objections known, but not voted the bill down in the second reading, so that there is a chance for the bill to be effectively rewritten in the committee stage. If it is still not fit for purpose, expect them to vote against it in the final reading. This is the only leverage they really have to get it changed, since they don't have a parliamentary majority. Even if they all voted against it, assuming the Tory Whips are doing their job, it will go through anyway. It is then down to the Lords to sort it out.
In my mind, the bits that need removing are exactly those discussed in the article - all this ICR mass surveillance nonsense needs to go, and oversight needs to be from a judge, not a politician (and not a judge rubber-stamping a politician's decision without visibility of the justification). Surveillance needs to be approved by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis. There is, however, a case for the spooks to actually conduct surveillance on people who may be a threat to the state, this just needs to be done with proper oversight, and the existence of such surveillance should be released to the public after the fact, once the subjects have either been conclusively found to be up to something, or not. In other words, the same rules of law that apply to pretty much every other crime.
FWIW, Corbyn is apparently in favour of reforming the whip system, and is on the record saying this several years ago before there was the mildest hint of him becoming the party's leader. He is one of the few politicians who has consistently voted against the party line, against the wishes of the party's wishes, which is something that sets him apart from the 'Tory-lite' Blairites.
The party whips serve several functions, some of which are important to a functioning democracy, such as effective communication between MPs and organising voting. The problem with them isn't that they tell people how to vote (this is an effective way of communicating party policy), but that they effectively sanction those who do not vote the 'right' way.
An interesting discussion of this can be found in Mark Thomas's "The People's Manifesto", first broadcast in 2010, where he interviews Corbyn on exactly this.
I recommend that when reading the article, you delete the sub-headings, but as you say the Labour front bench want to use the Committee stage to make the bill “fit for purpose”, which includes reviewing the case for the new “bulk” powers& improving the Judicial Oversight, in permitting the proposed Judicial Commissioners to review the police & politician’s “probable cause”. Starmer stated that it currently wasn’t so. He may be playing for time and behaving in the national interest to find the six Tories necessary to ensure the Government makes concessions, although not all the Tory usual suspects seem to be signed up to their usual positions.
Despite this it is clear that Starmer wants to continue with the currently illegal data retention. (For the pedants, it’s legal under British law, but probably not under EU law. It’s one of the reasons that the Government is in hurry up mode, they want the new law before the pending court cases get to either the ECHR or the CJEU.)
Jon Lansman at Left Future’s examines Starmer & Burnham’s policy making powers within the Labour Party in the article bow, dated 16th March and finds their commitment to listening to its membership, its voters, and those that might to vote Labour wanting.
http://www.leftfutures.org/2016/03/labour-mps-abstain-on-snoopers-charter-straight-talking-honest-politics/
One really has to question whether the country’s former Chief Prosecutor should be Labour’s spokesman on the #IPBill.
I was present at the meeting, which for the record was convened by the Labour Campaign for Human Rights.
.. between the increase in surveillance and a state being up to no good. It's what someone up to no good does first: look around to see if anyone is watching. If you accept that as a premise (it's not causation, after all), it is worth noting that there was a VERY sharp ramp up in CCTV during New Labour's term in government and event in the years bear out that this government was very much not "for the people". You can also see that in the US right now, so draw your own conclusions.
If you hear a whirring sound near London's UCL, its probably Jeremy Bantham trying to tell you that his Panopticon theories were for PRISONS.
The government collecting this data may be (even though the US investigation suggests not) a necessary evil, but even then it should be out in the open, as limited as possible and tightly controlled by judges - not bureaucrats or politicians.
The mere fact it exists, especially given the governments dire record on IT projects, means it will be misused by politicians and staff who are political fanatics, paedophiles, identity thieves, spies or terrorists (or have been blackmailed or bribed by same). It will also inevitably be hacked or tampered with ...
The condescending, nanny knows best, attempts by our politicians to have us ignore these obvious risks is deeply depressing and disturbing.
This is, of course, a good argument against Brexit - Brussels will probably torpedo this assault on our liberty, which our spineless parliament proposes to rubber-stamp.
@ John 98
"This is, of course, a good argument against Brexit - Brussels will probably torpedo this assault on our liberty, which our spineless parliament proposes to rubber-stamp."
We will see. Right now they are a bit busy with their currency crisis. Their migration crisis. Their unemployment crisis. Their Turkey crisis. Their Russia crisis. And so on. Although apparently we should now be happy with them because they have come to an agreement over the tampon tax (because we are considering leaving and so are getting desperate).
If we dont want bad policy like this then we need to vote for a different party. Are people so incompetent in this country that voting is too complicated and confusing to choose who they think is right to run our country? Is responsibility so scary that we want the EU to dictate to us (because we get no say unless we are about to leave, and then its embarrassingly little).
Saying the EU will probably get their nose out of the gravy long enough to torpedo this problem does not sound encouraging.
A few counter-points:
Those crises you list mostly also apply to us, whether we are in the EU or not.
It does seem that we are, on the whole, incapable of electing decent politicians in this country. This is in part to lack of engagement of most people, and the system of political donations affecting policy a lot more than the wishes of the people. I don't think this is a problem unique to our particular political set up, and the EU is little different.
Your point about us having 'no say' in the EU is nonsense. We elect MEPs to do exactly that. If you were dumb enough to be one of those who voted in a UKIP candidate who is now taking the money but not bothering to represent us in Europe, then the fault lies at your door, not in Brussels. Being a member of the EU gives us the means and mechanisms to engage with the rest of Europe. Withdrawing from the EU would take those away, in which case the EU, as a larger entity, really would be able to dictate to us on many issues (trade, regulation, etc. etc.)
To suggest that the EU has it's "nose in the gravy" and to not acknowledge the old-boys network and sheer corruption of our own government (where money buys influence) looks a little like tunnel-vision to me.
@ Loyal Commenter
"Those crises you list mostly also apply to us, whether we are in the EU or not."
>currency crisis: nope
>migration crisis: because we are in the EU
>unemployment crisis: nope
>Turkey crisis: Not us unless the EU dictate the redistribution of migrants
>Russia crisis: No more than anyone else in or out I guess.
>Tampon tax: Please sir can we remove a tax from our own people. Yes if it will help convince your people to leave, else no.
"It does seem that we are, on the whole, incapable of electing decent politicians in this country"
I am not going to argue against that one, but does that mean we should let someone else decide and dictate instead? I am sure there are many dictators who could spare the time. And without a choice, we will be stuck with whoever gets in (one of the reasons Germany dont want us to leave. They have less politicians on their side). As for lack of engagement, who is actually in the EU to represent us? We all know Nigel is there. Anyone else (of course not even asking for anyone from the other countries)?
"If you were dumb enough to be one of those who voted in a UKIP candidate who is now taking the money but not bothering to represent us in Europe, then the fault lies at your door, not in Brussels"
God yes I voted UKIP, because I am dumb enough to vote for who represents my views. But again apart from Nigel who in the EU represents us? Off the top of my head that is it. I will point out that UKIP do seem to be doing what they were voted for. You might not like it but people are dumb enough to argue they are too thick to vote here so want the EU to dictate.
"Being a member of the EU gives us the means and mechanisms to engage with the rest of Europe."
A development honed over centuries.
"Withdrawing from the EU would take those away, in which case the EU, as a larger entity, really would be able to dictate to us on many issues"
Ha nope. And since people already selling to the EU they already meet the regulations. And the regulations will do as the EU dictates regardless of us in or out (we are only 1 of many and expanding towards turkey). The idea the country dies without the EU ignores everything up to the creation of the EU (and ignores the many crisis the EU exists in).
"To suggest that the EU has it's "nose in the gravy" and to not acknowledge the old-boys network and sheer corruption of our own government (where money buys influence) looks a little like tunnel-vision to me."
At no point did I ignore that. As I keep saying, we should vote for who we want. Its an alien concept which has only been fought for throughout all history. Or we can surrender it for nothing. Well maybe they will torpedo something we dont like from a government we elected. If that is our reasoning then where did it all go wrong?
As for lack of engagement, who is actually in the EU to represent us? We all know Nigel is there.
Is that the Nigel who pockets all the allowances he can and carries out no engagement within the European Parliament unless it gives him an opportunity to insult someone? You really voted for him?!
@ Rich 11
"Is that the Nigel who pockets all the allowances he can and carries out no engagement within the European Parliament unless it gives him an opportunity to insult someone? You really voted for him?!"
Yes yes and 20 times yes. The guy who actually represents my views within the EU by talking to them honestly (you call that insults). Like the rest he takes his allowances and as far as I am concerned he does his job. So yes.
@ Rich 11
"Is that the Nigel who pockets all the allowances he can and carries out no engagement within the European Parliament unless it gives him an opportunity to insult someone? You really voted for him?!"
Followed by another yes- https://www.facebook.com/1091693184215802/videos/1106744026044051/
". Are people so incompetent in this country that voting is too complicated and confusing to choose who they think is right to run our country? "
It's more the case that people feel disenfranchised by the First Past The Post voting system. The only votes that count are in marginal seats. The candidates are pre-selected by a small number of that party's members or the party machine.
Parties that have widespread support rather than being concentrated in a geographical region may get lots of votes - but no seats.
Too often an MP is elected with far less than 50% of the local votes cast. Similarly a party gets large majorities in Parliament while polling far less than 50% of the national votes cast.
But the electorate recently had a chance to reform this idiotic system, and like a porn star, they blew it. Labour and Tory parties alike have nothing to gain from allowing fairer representation in parliament so they tell all their sheep to reject the idea. So it goes.
To be fair, in the last election the first past the post system saved us from having a government with 1/8th of the seats filled from the ranks of the united kingdon idiots and pissheads party, so at least we can take that as some consolation.
FPTP is dying, though: between them Labour and the Tories command less than 40% of the electorate, down from 75% in the 1950s. Meanwhile the numbers voting for other parties (mostly wanting PR) has risen. And with the SNP locking out over 50 seats like the IPP did before WWI, it gets even harder for either Labour or the Tories to form a majority.
All it'll take is for either of them to be forced into PR in a coalition deal. The Tories dodged the bullet in 2010 when that muppet Clegg went for a referendum on a voting system no-one wanted.
To be fair, in the last election the first past the post system saved us from having a government with 1/8th of the seats filled from the ranks of the united kingdon idiots and pissheads party, so at least we can take that as some consolation.
So, you only want democracy when it gives you the right answer? You must read the Guardian.
"So, you only want democracy when it gives you the right answer?"
Well, it's a piss poor way to choose leaders but it would be nice to actually give it a try. What we have now isn't remotely democratic, with a choice of bad/worse/ignored and bugger all chance of actually having my views represented.
The 'Democracy only when I agree with the answer' mindset is totally common on all sides.
Most people do not want true Democracy including any of the variations on PR as it will probably give a result that satisfies no-one completely.
I personally do not want 'middle of the road' compromise Govts that cannot get agreement for anything and spend all the time debating compromise solutions to everything.
Real change is usually as a consequence of strong Govts with strongly held ideas, even if I disagree with the politics of a strong govt at least you are getting real change not weak compromise solutions.
(We should have learnt from the 'Compromise' Govt we got with the LibDems and the Tories.)
In terms of the 'Snoopers Charter' God help us all!!
Once it is passed all Govts of all colours will use and abuse it, that is a 100% certainty you do not need a Crystal Ball to foresee.
Hoping for the EU to save us on this one is the longest shot I can imagine.
If the House of Lords gets in the way with this bill they will be 'Defanged' once and for all by this Tory Govt.
It looks like I need to find religion real fast for this to be stopped. :)
Canada may be getting a lot of new citizens from the UK as well as from the US of A* ... (*Re: Beware the 'March of Trump', so to speak!!)
"[...] even if I disagree with the politics of a strong govt at least you are getting real change not weak compromise solutions. [...] In terms of the 'Snoopers Charter' God help us all!! Once it is passed all Govts of all colours will use and abuse it,[...]"
So there are some limits to your willingness to accept unpalatable policies from "strong" governments who probably have minority support?
A lot of countries in Europe have managed with PR coalitions for decades (possibly excepting Italy?). It usually means gentle moves to the left or right rather than the massive U-turns of two party government.
In practice even the two big UK parties are actually coalitions of many smaller factions. They stick together because that's the only way to game the FPTP system. Small factions work to get their hands on their party's organisational posts - and expect to then have the levers of power. It takes really nasty internal fractures for a group to splinter away as a separate party - eg UKIP and the SDP.
Right now they are a bit busy with their currency crisis. Their migration crisis. Their unemployment crisis. Their Turkey crisis. Their Russia crisis. And so on.
The EU in general is, just as are we. However, in the same way that those don't stop Parliament from rushing through this latest version of the snooper's charter, none of those things stop the EU Court of Justice from ruling on any case brought before it, nor does it stop the European Court of Human Rights ruling against the bill if it becomes UK law (especially as the ECHR is not part of the EU).
Would staying in the EU/a sentence from the ECHR against the Snooper's Charter really mean anything? The spooks are going to do whatever they want anyway (that much has been proven), and the law is always catching up. If the Snooper's Charter is passed then later overturned, I really doubt it would make any difference.
If there's a politician who's whiter than white and able to oppose this bill it's Corbyn, but it doesn't look like he's interested in this battle.
This is, of course, a good argument against Brexit - Brussels will probably torpedo this assault on our liberty, which our spineless parliament proposes to rubber-stamp.
I think you mean that Brussels will probably applaud this assault on our liberty because that is their overall aim.
The commission is not elected by the people of the EU and is thus NOT a democratic institution and never will be.
Any person in their right mind* would want out of that situation as fast as possible.
*That assumes that they are not a hard line communist
.
Labour also want these intrusive powers so they can use them next time they get to drive the car, so I don't think we can hold out much hope that they'll do anything of substance to oppose or reform this bit of legislation.
We could then hope that the Lords will block this. Ironically enough for a house full of unelected and basically unaccountable fogies, they have decent form in protecting the rest of us against the worst excesses of the weasels in the commons. Unfortunately each time they do the weasels throw their toys out of the pram and start making load noises about reforming the second house (which basically means we'll pervert it so that we can threaten the members to vote for what we want too). So it's by no means a given that it will get blocked there.
If we're going to rely on europe to save us from the Westminster Stazi it will be the ECHR which does it - nothing to do with the european commission. And whilst they're not immune from making the odd dud decision they do tend to look pretty dimly on wanton abuses of civil liberties like this. I'm with the orginal commentard - having an extra set of checks and balances against this sort of abuse is one clear area where EU membership is a good thing.
@"Labour also want these intrusive powers so they can use them next time they get to drive the car,"
No, it's one of the group of people involved in the illegal mass surveillance. See the "according to the party's Keir Starmer MP" part from the article. According to Keir Starmar he speaks for Labour and they're totally cool with all this mass surveillance shite. SAYS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HID IT FROM PARLIAMENT!
He is claiming to speak for Labour without actually having a free vote that would give him the authority he pretends to have. As Direct of Public prosecutions he would have known about the "Preston Briefings" (mass surveillance data fed to Public Prosecutors). And he was one of Lord Blairs group when they attempted to slip Snoopers Charter into amendements.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/06/11/the-snoopers-charter-backlash
"For cases such as counter-terrorism, organised crime and large-scale fraud, I would go so far as to say that communications data is so important that any reduction in capability would create a real risk to future prosecutions," Keir Starmer wrote to Clegg, "
Keep in mind as he's saying this he already knows about the illegal mass surveillance and the people he's addressing (the MPs who will vote on Snoopers Charter) do not.
Perhaps he needs to come clean about the full extent of what he's knows this time so ELECTED MPs can vote knowing the truth about their surveillance.
The commission is not elected by the people of the EU and is thus NOT a democratic institution and never will be.
Neither is our Cabinet. The Prime Minister can pick members from the House of Lords as well as the Commons. Two in the last dozen years have been made a peer simply so that they could sit in Cabinet!
@Rich11,
Neither is our Cabinet. The Prime Minister can pick members from the House of Lords as well as the Commons.
Not a true comparison because the bulk of Cabinet is made up if elected MPs, there isn't one of the Commission that has been elected by anyone - typical old USSR politics.
>This is, of course, a good argument against Brexit - Brussels will probably torpedo this assault on our liberty, which our spineless parliament proposes to rubber-stamp.
Ah yes, nothing says "FREEDOM!" like having your local democracy torpedoed.
Fix your local democracy.
If you can't make your local democracy work, how will you influence a far larger one, where your vote counts for less?
"the security services will continue to exercise those powers without the safeguards the bill intends to introduce" and it's pretty certain they'll carry on whatever laws get passed.
Outlawing snooping might not stop it, it will make the security services a lot more circumspect about how they obtain and use the results and paranoid about who they share with. Anything that reduces gov access to surveillance has to be a win. Maybe the saner voices in the securiity services could even impose some needed restraint without constant pressure from power mad ministers. Maybe.
What annoys me is the claim that the security services can do it legally now using "royal prerogative".
Britain is not a monarchist dictatorship, the limits on "royal prerogative" are clear, and the Home Secretary does not have the power of a dictator to authorize this. But yet they exercised dictator powers in secret and kept it from Parliament, exactly as if they were a dictatorship.
Not only that, the spooks, followed the dictatorship not the democracy! Their loyalty was clear. Farr's clearly false interpretation of law trumps Parliament actual words. There's no way a 1984 law could have applied to a network that didn't exist, for data queries that didn't exist at the time, or authorized a mass surveillance system that wasn't technically possible in 1984.
Yet a group of people were in the know about it and kept the rest of Parliament in the dark (Sir Keir Starmer, KCB, QC, MP as director of prosecutions would have known about the secret briefings and so would be in the know-group). Likewise Lord Blair (ex head of the MET) would have known.
The people in the know have migrated to political jobs where they try to legalize what is in effect a massive crime.
He was right there - voting against it along with his colleagues (and Plaid Cymru). Unfortunately, as the population only saw fit to give the liberals a handful of seats this made damn all difference.
Why an electorate pissed off with the coalition turned their backs on the lib dems in order to vote in more *tories* I'll never quite understand. Still, you get what you deserve, eh?
Why an electorate pissed off with the coalition turned their backs on the lib dems in order to vote in more *tories* I'll never quite understand.
Because by going into coalition the Lib Dems enabled the Tories to do far more harm than they were subsequently willing or able to block. It wasn't what the majority of Lib Dem voters wanted in 2010, and they weren't going to risk making the same mistake in 2015.
Starmer's comments are (as is frequently the case) a mild bending of the truth.
When he says that we need these laws "because of Snowdon" he is using a generalism to paint a picture that the laws are required because Snowdon acted against the nation's interests.
In fact all that Snowdon did was fully expose how our security services were routinely breaking the law by tapping communications, harvesting web use and social media data on a continental scale for no other reason than that they could get away with it.
Snowdon exposed the scope and reach of the illegal invasion of our personal communications by Government. That is no reason in itself to support legislation for it's legalisation going forward.
Thats a rather disingenuous interpretation of his comments. He's saying part of the bill is a necessary consolidation of a whole raft of dogdily interpreted regulations. And he has a point.
1 bill = less loopholes.
One of the problems with the IPB its 2 things (sensible consolidation of existing powers + stoopid enhancement of powers)
if done properly the first is a good thing.
"if done properly the first is a good thing."
It rarely is done properly. The drafting is often lacking in diligence. Difficult detail is defined loosely - leaving it open to mission creep. The appeal courts are expected to sort it out for innocent people after their conviction.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was similarly advertised as a bill to wrap up a lot of old laws to make it fit for the modern world. What actually happened was that the initial draft was by committees with co-opted members, particularly the police, who had axes to grind about their difficulty in getting convictions.
After the draft bill's public consultation some of the more draconian clauses were modified back to the tolerant spirit of the old laws - but the net effect was a less liberal legal position for Joe Public than before.
sensible consolidation of existing powers + stoopid enhancement of powers + hiding of details in secondary legislation so they can be made even more draconian in future without parliamentary oversight
Fixed it for you.
Snowden's revelations did made it clear that a lot of laws need to be repealed and replaced with a single and clear set of guidelines, with much firmer limits on what can and can't be done. However, using this necessary process to legalise the very abuses that caused all the fuss is exactly why no-one trusts politicians.
Can these politicians please stop serving up this bullshit?
Most of the powers exist but only GCHQ use them.
This bill is for the extension of these powers to all and sundry adding in the ability to see everyone's browsing history.
Double lock my arse, come back when you have to get a warrant based on evidence to snoop on people, now that may be from analysis of websites visited but it doesn't mean you have to record and keep everyone's record for a year.
Otherwise piss off.
Double piss off to Labour.
Did anyone hear him on Tuesday?. He stated to the house that as we don't know who the suspect is we must spy on everybody, so that we have evidence when we find out who the suspect is. He doesn't give a damn about Snowden, or making sure powers are all in one place, nor do the rest of them.
The person who personally ordered my great grandfather shot would be proud. I suspect people walking past the Kremlin wall necropolis in the red square are hearing mad giggles coming from his grave.
Disclaimer - that person name happens to be Joseph Vissarionovich Jugashvilli. You can probably guess my opinion regarding the esteemed MP from there onwards.
The issue I have with this is (notwithstanding the invasion of privacy and erosion of liberty by default) that it will be misused and misinterpreted and the innocent will suffer. We saw prevention of terrorism legislation being used to challenge a man taking a picture of his daughter in a shopping centre 5 years ago for example.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15251848
Starmer explained that his, and the Labour party's, position was that the bill was "absolutely needed."
Then vote for it.
They're not passing the bill at this stage, they're just voting whether or not to allow it to proceed to the next stage. What justification therefore could they possibly have to abstain?
Anything other than a yes/no vote is an outright abdication of the responsibility to the constituents that they chose to represent when they stood for election. It also brings their suitability for public office into question in my opinion.
And in case anybody here has forgotten: Keir Starmer completely failed to address illegal mass interception of private communications when it was being undertaken by BT and Phorm when he was at the CPS. Why should we be any more confident he will be any more effective as a counterbalance to government demands for more mass surveillance?
@ > "Between 2008 and 2013 Starmer was the Director of Public Prosecutions, "
Well now I'm curious, because "Preston Briefings" are briefings on phone surveillance data given to prosecutors. They don't appear in court records and so have likely been concealed from the courts. aka British Version of "Parallel Construction". Now he (Keir Starmer MP) was the director of public prosecutions during the time of "Preston Briefings", and thus deeply involved in that.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/16/big_brother_born_ntac_gchq_mi5_mass_surveillance_data_slurping/
There was a claim that it was only done for "innocent people", but that seems more likely to be a cover story than common sense. You couldn't be sure someone is innocence unless you found evidence of someone else's guilt, so you're actually telling a prosecutor evidence of guilt which isn't then seen in court records. aka "Parallel Construction".
He needs at this point to explain his involvement and where "Preston Briefings" were given in cases that progressed to court cases, those need to be re-opened with the missing evidence given to defense and to judges.
I worked that waste of space politician out when I realised he was full of shit.
Take tax credits for example,
I've had a letter Bob from Devon and he is worried that as he and his partner work 40 hours a week on low pay and they will not be able to feed the kiddies due to tax credits changes.
2 years later Bob can't feed his kiddies because he got royally screwed over by Universal Credit that Mr man of the people Corbyn didn't bother to question as that was the plan all along.
It's basic arithmetic, I've looked at the numbers for a friend who works and gets tax credits and she will be 3k worse off due to crap wages that were allowed due to government subsidies of business.
So no Corbyn isn't some socialist for the people and against big business he's just another toss pot politician and Labours stance on the IPB just proves that even more.
Viva la revolution.
Why cannot the politicians see that the police and security services will use the to obtain data on those same politicians that can be used to leverage them into granting even more power to those authorities?
Or maybe that's the real reason the politicians are calling for this Bill - they are already being blackmailed.
The surveillance society was brought in by a right wing government most of whose MPs were there as professional politicians who had nothing but contempt for the general public. They were mainly interested in feathering their nests by making extensive use of buy-for-let laws and "consultancy" opportunities with outsourcing companies. A lot of them are still around, and they and their mates in the media spend a lot of time mocking the unfortunate leader of the Labour Party.
Unfortunately, those people are Labour MPs, and quite a lot of the Conservatives are just as bad.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
