Well done Mr Davis
Hopefully you can find more like you to kill the bill.
Tory backbencher David Davis has described the government's draft communications surveillance law as an "odious shopping list" of new powers demanded by the Home Office. He told MPs and peers at a joint select committee hearing on Wednesday afternoon that UK spooks were "looking for a pin" but instead "creating a field of …
Hopefully you can find more like you to kill the bill.
"The idea of a black box organised at a central level has not actually yet been done in a democratic country,"
Since when has britain ever been demoractic? Your kidding.
Civil servants rule (no matter which coulour is leading), and the British are too dim to understand/care.
I'm astounded that a tory minister is standing up for what is right! It's a breath of fresh air in the stagnant Tory party.
How can you be so sure he doesn't have some vested interest? perhaps a board membership for a company with a differing system wanting preferred access to contracts?
True, very true. It is the torys we are talking about alfter all.
The clue is in the name, now get back to work serfs, or we'll set the dogs on you and burn your hovels! :)
Well shows how much you know.
David Davis is well know for libertarian attitudes and being more traditionally Conservative.
He is a big believer in privacy and against the big brother society.
I still think the wrong David won the selectrion process those years ago
And I stand by what I had said MJI, "I'm astounded that a tory minister is standing up for what is right! It's a breath of fresh air in the stagnant Tory party." (Notice, Chris, that i'm not name calling anyone!)
It might also be valuable for many to learn that there is probably spelling checker functionality built into your browser.
"I'm astounded that a tory minister is standing up for what is right!"
This is far more likely than a Labour MP doing so. Though party distinctions have blurred, Conservatism has traditionally been about being given the freedom to stand on your own two feet, while Labour is all about "Big Government" and the welfare state.
Having said that, Cameron's "Conservatives" have shown themselves to be more like New Labour in their control freakery.
know passes spelling checker
know is known with the n not typed - we all do it!
The clue is not in the name;
Practically every single liberty UK subjects enjoy, was created by unelected monarchs and lords (e.g. Trial by Jury)
Practically every single liberty that has been taken away, or attempted to be stolen, has been via the House of Commons. (e.g. scrapping of double jeopardy by previous goverment)
I would also remind you that England'ss one and only military dictator was an MP (Cromwell), whoose rule was so appalling that the King was invited back, as a better alternative to the tyrany Cromwell inflicted.
...for your invaluable and fascinating input :)
Practically every liberty was extracted forcibly by the barons or middle/merchant classes from the unelected monarchs, because they were autocratic bastards. That the liberties were gained for all was probably an accident or a necessary default for the sake of expediency.
That those classes then tried to put those liberties back in the box, as far as the plebs were concerned, is a predictable outcome of the initial exuberance, as they might see it.
For all it's faults, I think I prefer the possibilities of the current subdued but inclusive class war to the few accidental scraps of benefit that fall out from a theological dictatorship conflicting with croneys, thanks.
Every single monarch without exception before the Glorious Revolution was a military dictator. Cromwell was a scrupulously honest man and a democrat. Installing his idiot son as a successor was a mistake, but not one he had any part of, being dead at the time.
You need to do more history revision. And maybe be a little more optimistic. Remember that at the time Britain only had a history of family succession of military coup. Britain's elite at the time put up Cromwell's son then invited a Stuart back because there was no tradition of doing anything else. Electing someone? What? Never heard of that one, it'll never work. It took the successes of the libertarian and mercantile classes the next 200 years to gradually wrest control from monarchs and deliver the constitutional monarchy system of government we have today. Plus, democracy is the worst kind of government except for every other form.
Guilty until proven innocent?
Sounds like it's time to get the old packet radio network going again.
Quote: "collection of data by ISPs through Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) probes - colloquially dubbed black boxes - had only been implemented on a national scale in China, Iran and Kazakhstan."
I guess our politicians seek out their own kind...
Being prejudiced is a perfectly normal human trait after all.
"Being prejudiced is a perfectly normal human trait after all."
Live and let live, I've no prejudices. These are a learnt/taught concept usually picked up from the parents/peers.
Says the person who has just condemned all Tories (sp) as bastards. Self-awareness isn't your strong suit, is it?
"Says the person who has just condemned all Tories (sp) as bastards. Self-awareness isn't your strong suit, is it?"
Prejudice and political views, I can't reconcile your argument.
Having a political view is hardly prejudice.
Sorry, your thinking needs adjustment. Maybe your parents/peers have skewed your views?
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
I'm not sure you've quite grasped the concept of 'thinking' either.
Normal just means within a reasonable average set. If everyone has a prejudice, then having a prejudice is normal.
Haha... what, not even towards, say, Paedophiles, for example? I'll bet my bottom dollar....
Not liking (or liking) cheese is a prejudice, though I would agree that the young learn things from their parents...
...Mind you, they usually do the opposite!
Pickles also warned that, under the proposed law, protesters outside Parliament might, for example, be more easily rounded up and identified by police who could access the comms data sent between individuals in that area.
I rather think this is the whole point - not some unintended side effect.
So you are walking across Parliament Square on your way to work and you see the half dozen protestors, one of whom is female and wearing a silly t-shirt with a clever slogan. You take a picture on your mobile to send to the guys at work (nothing to do with the size of her breasts, honest). Next day, you get a vist from the boys in blue.
You were there, you took a picture; now explain why! Innocent until proven guilty? Don't think so sir; not in the democratic people's republic of Airstrip 1!
This is just yet a further extension of the attempts to do away with our civil liberties. If we allow it to happen, we deserve everything that happens to us.
Glad to see a backbencher sticking it to their own party, I thought the last of these had disappeared with Tony Benn, Alan Clark and co with them eventually being replaced by Blair's robots.
You should read Douglas Carswell's blog if you want to see an MP sticking it to their own party...
with the added bonus you'll get to pay for it.
The political class couldn't careless you have your choice, pay income tax till you drop dead or sign on and become an alcoholic/obese and die early, just remember to drop your blue or red token in the box marked democracy and we'll do the rest for you.
"The idea of a black box organised at a central level has not actually yet been done in a democratic country," he added."
we can't be No 1 at anything else, from education to broadband speed, at least we got a chance now to be a No 1 snooping democracy. After all, what's that little black box and profiled intelligence, compared with, say, daily bombings and shootings which we face otherwise?
"The notion of British taxpayers paying private companies to hoard communications data on behalf of the UK government was unpalatable, he added."
just lie down and think of Britain. And the children. And the children's children.
There are at least two, maybe three, companies that make a good living selling DPI equipment for exactly this purpose, and their best customers include central government agencies in English-speaking countries most of us would consider democratic. If Mr Hosein is correct, I imagine the gear was just purchased to use up surplus departmental budget money at the end of the financial year, and the telcos use the waste heat from the secret rooms to keep their offices warm.
How long before the black boxes get pwned, and all our data becomes available to precisely the people we don't want to have it? (Don't want to have it even more than we don't want the government to have it, that is).
I voted against Labour last time to kill ID cards. Who do I vote for next time? What's UKIP's policy on spying on the populace?
No party is deeply attached to the idea. Write to your MP and express your views (nicely !) : http://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/cdb
And vote for DD
My MP wrote back - seems somewhere in the middle and he is a bit of a rebel.
I have. Twice.
The first reply told me to think of the children and the terrorists and how important it was to be able to see who's communicating with who over IM and VOIP services!
I am still awaiting a reply to the second asking how they will be able to record endpoints in proprietary and secure IM/VOIP services. It now appears they expect Google/Facebook/MS to provide that data for them! HA (hopefully)!
This is such an almighty waste of money! Glorious leaders, please listen to Tim Berners-Lee who is utterly against this..
Which will let you email your MP directly. I recommend doing this every once in a while just so they don't forget who they're supposed to be representing.
The problem is that communicating with anyone in officialdom is likely to get you on some sort of watch list. Who can say what the powers that (will) be can use that information for in the future?
I'd write to my MP but unfortunately my MP now happens to be David bastard bastard bastard Blunkett and let us be honest I don't think writing to him is going to be of any sodding use at all given his previous form.
At least the police will be able to see if politicians are talking about them, would that be a police state in some way?
I guess there'll be some kind of slip somewhere and some newspaper will somehow discover that some politicianorother has been talking to some mediatycoonorother (while some admin somewhere trips off to Barclays with enough money to embarrass Bob Diamond
oh no, that'll never happen
And the data will always be 100% true and never tampered with by anyone, a black box can't lie
Obviously the only validity in a black box is that it's always going to tell the trutth otherwise it wouldn't be worth having
We all know nothing weird ever appears in any kind of log files ... ever
They will ensure that their communications are exempt from interception, this law will only apply to the unwashed masses
Data storage by ISPs is for the benefit of relatively low level snoopers such as local councils and plod. It takes some of the cost of surveillance off the government. It also leaves the heavy duty spooks clear from the overhead of intrusions in which such gauleiters indulge. And it diverts public attention from the deeper monitoring of the internet which goes largely unnoticed and unquestioned.
There have apparently been fibre splitters in exchanges for some while now. See, for example, the diagram in the article by Chris Williams in 2008 and the comment by mikus.
... or maybe it's the thin end of another wedge.
David Davis consistently votes against bills and articles violating the right to privacy. One of the very, very few people willing to stand up for personal dignity [in this respect].
We're not all guilty, and hiding these bills behind the OMGPAEDOS defence is starting to wear thin. They are nothing to do with that, and everything to do with controlling a medium they're afraid of.
Cue Orlowski in all of five minutes telling us that piracy causes terrorism and these measures don't go anywhere near far enough, and are a slap in the face to the content industries and rightsholders...
I'm getting out of here as soon as I can.
NZ or Canada are looking increasingly attractive.
I'm starting to think that you'll need to find somewhere small, less developed, more chaotic. The Cape Verde islands, maybe? Costa Rica? Iceland? The Swiss have a good attitude but a lousy location. The bigger and more centralized the state, the worse the techno-surveillance will be, and the worse things will be when the trap closes.
Let's say we discovered (Hogwarts Style) magic; there would be no limit whatsoever to the amount of surveillance you could do. Where would our politicians draw the line?
This is the question that should be asked of every Home Sec, prime or cabinet minister: If it were possible to intrude entirely into the lives of every citizen, how much do you think is appropriate?
The question that politicians must ask themselves, is whether they are really happy to have the legislation and the infrastructure passed down to the worst possible successor government they can imagine.
A lesson from history. At the time of German Unification (under Bismark - 1890s) everyone happily traipsed off to fill in a simple form to claim their citizenship of the new German state. Bismark also created the most efficient beurocracy that the world had ever known.Those records were well-preserved, well-copied, well-indexed. Roll forwards 45 years. The parents may already have passed on, but the single word "Jewish" under "religion" sealed the fate of their children and grandchildren and even great-grandchildren.
Do you *still* want the entire map of everyone you, your parents and your children ever communicated with to available to *all* future governments?
So we need all these powers on the web to watch us and monitor for our own safety?
Because we need to fear the terrorist and the like.
If they are such a credible threat, what cock ordered group 4 security to protect us during the olympics then?
I mean either the snooping laws reasons are massively over exxagerated for some nefarioous reason, or there's going to be a massacre at the velodrome.
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds