back to article Did EU ruling invalidate the UK's bonkers Snoopers' Charter?

Yesterday's judgment from the EU Court of Justice offered hope to many of those critical of the wider culture of communications data retention, but what does this mean for the UK's Investigatory Powers Act? Nothing immediately, of course. The original case will now go back to the UK's Court of Appeal, from whence it initially …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I feel sick

    How can spying on innocent people be legal? If I disagree with government policy and try to look up stuff from an opposing view, then they know all about it. They can visit me in night and silence me. How is it legal to make laws that only apply to certain people? Why are MPs and chums exempted from being spied on? I ask myself why millions died in wars to protect the future and save us from Hitler and the SS style of leadership only to have it come in through the front door while the country sleeps. I pray we get invaded by someone so this nonsense ends. The Yanks knew what they were doing in 1776, I am ashamed of this country. Anon? makes no difference.

    1. Yes Me Silver badge

      Re: I feel sick

      Of course I dislike this law, but you ask "How can spying on innocent people be legal?" Easily, if the police are trying to solve a crime, and don't yet know who's innocent and who's guilty - that's why people are called "suspects" and are legally inncocent until proved guilty. The problem comes with blanket authority to spy on people who aren't even suspects, especially when that authority isn't just given to police but to, apparently, any number of jobsworths and their outsourced service providers.

      1. Red Bren
        Big Brother

        Re: I feel sick

        "the police are trying to solve a crime, and don't yet know who's innocent and who's guilty"

        The police think everyone is guilty of something; they want to know what it is.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: I feel sick

      "How can spying on innocent people be legal?" - well, how are the Plod supposed to know who's "innocent" before they've done any investigating?

      Seriously, this is the 300 kg gorilla that never seems to get mentioned here: you can't spy on terrorists and kiddie fiddlers without also spying on you and me. It's logically (and very likely legally) impossible. If we don't want that to happen, then the Powers will also need to find (stick to) alternative ways to spy on Bad People.

      "If I disagree with government policy and try to look up stuff from an opposing view, then they know all about it. They can visit me in night and silence me." - well sure, but only if they're willing to do that to (quite literally) half the population, and nobody has time for that. Not yet, anyway.

      "How is it legal to make laws that only apply to certain people?" - short answer, Parliament can make whatever laws it likes, subject (to a limited degree) to precedent and constitution and international treaties. Longer answer, this is by far the worst aspect of the act, and if you want to point to an aspect that is totally indefensible on any plausible grounds, this is the weak spot.

      "I pray we get invaded" - please drop the hyperbole. Being invaded is never pleasant. If you genuinely wish for that, you're an idiot.

      1. MR J

        Re: I feel sick

        The problem is that this will eventually move on to other things.

        Fixed Penalty notice because of some "Oops" and the council can see it.

        3rd party "external" groups will end up getting access to it with the aim of making the UK better at something. Gov will promise to make the data stealthy in some way so we cant be identified, but then the company harvesting the data will ask for a few billion to make it stealthy and the gov will just decide to trust them, yay.

        The Royal Mail handles legal issues internally. There was a guy who worked at the depot near me and to help the whole depot meet the quotas he would take home whole bags of letters/packages every day. Eventually he got caught and was sent to another depot, the police said they couldn't take action because no "theft" was reported (mail in the hands of Royal Mail staff is still Royal Mail property, thus no crime was reported as Royal Mail would need to report theft, or so I was told). This type of behaviour would get pushed from paper data down to digital data, and you can be sure it will happen sooner rather than later. Blackmail, corporate theft, nosey neighbours who work at the council, corrupt people with authority, eventually leading down to criminals who will look to target homes based on things like purchases and using metrics to know exactly when those people will not be at home.

        Right now we are moving towards a everyone is "guilty" system where they will go one by one and find out who is "innocent". It is not going to work. On top of that, try to report any form of medium level cyber crime to the police - it will not go anywhere. The UK would take 20-30 years to learn how to use the data and spend the next 20 years after that trying to move the data checking out of Capita back to actual officers.

        If every politician that wants this done would be willing to open up all of their viewing, texting, phone usage, and whatever else type of digital coms to the public - then I would join without question. I would bet they even wrote in rules to exclude themselves from this type of microscope being used on them.

        1. edge_e

          Merry Christmas

          You better watch out

          You better not cry

          Better not pout

          I'm telling you why

          the government is tapping your phone

          They're making a list

          And checking it twice;

          They're gonna find out

          Who's naughty or nice

          the government is tapping your phone

          They're tracking all your browsing

          They're reading all your mail

          It's all being stored by your ISP

          And will end in security fail

          They know where you drink!

          They know where you drive

          you make it easy as

          you login to wifi

          the government is tapping your phone

          They're tracking all your browsing

          They're reading all your mail

          And if you join the green party

          you're going to grow a tail

          You better watch out!

          You better not cry

          You better not pout

          I'm telling you why

          the government is tapping your phone

      2. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: I feel sick

        "Seriously, this is the 300 kg gorilla that never seems to get mentioned here: you can't spy on terrorists and kiddie fiddlers without also spying on you and me."

        But you can have processes in place to make sure the information they get is proportional and not too invasive, if it turns out that the suspect is innocent.

        It's called a warrant.

        The police can't just wander into your house, but if they suspect that they need to, they can apply for a warrant, and someone outside the police will decide if the need is justified.

        Most people's objection to the snooper's charter is that in a lot of cases there is little to no oversight, and if there is, it's behind closed doors.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I feel sick

          @phuzz

          "Most people's objection to the snooper's charter is that in a lot of cases there is little to no oversight, and if there is, it's behind closed doors."

          It's called secret law which is an abomination in a free society.

          It leads to the State acting against the perfectly legal interests of those it is supposed to be working for and intimidating / ruining lives with impunity, because it can, eg the Met's spying on "activists".

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I feel sick

        @veti

        "Seriously, this is the 300 kg gorilla that never seems to get mentioned here..."

        Do you really not understand the difference between living in a free society and a totalitarian society?

        Unfortunately, some politicians see the Borg idea of perfection (total uniformity and zero tolerance) as a utopia to aspire to.

        Who wants to end up like the Chinese / Russian / Iranian / North Korean / Saudi Arabian models.

        Security really doesn't trump everything in a free country. And if you don't want a free country, then millions of people died for absolutely nothing in two world wars,and their deaths meaningless.

      4. Perfidious Albion

        Re: I feel sick

        Lol.

        "IF" "The police have been able to MONITOR kiddy-diddlers (Judges/Government types & Media Loves) (ETC)" HOW in Heck can they track them if they switch off recording CCTV when they commit crime? ...... because I have letters from Manchester Police (and a digital recording of Perfidious Albion Judges) lying/claiming that the Recording CCTV that undoubtedly proved me innocent at Manchester International Airport that lying police/Judges say:- "Was not recording", when we also have a letter from the Airport itself stating:- "The CCTV was recording" but that:- "No crime was recorded" where I was accused, and where I was attacked by police and hospitalized, and Police & Judges lied by telling me & my lawyer that:- "The CCTV does not record" when the Airport wrote to tell us it Does record, and that they delete it after 30 days if the police do not allow it to be retained...... How?

        Basically; "It records if you (the public) do something wrong", and "It does not record when they (Public authorities) do something wrong". Its the CCTV designed purely for the crime syndicate called Perfidious Albion.

        1. Version 1.0 Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: I feel sick

          "IF" "The police have been able to MONITOR kiddy-diddlers

          Dear El Reg, I know we have the ability to upvote and downvote posts but I wonder sometimes if we could have a "WTF?" button for some posts.

    3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: AC Re: I feel sick

      ".....Why are MPs and chums exempted from being spied on?....." Sorry to pop your alarmist bubble, but I can assure you, MPs - especially ministers - are monitored. Indeed, as a general member of the public, you would have to get yourself onto a "naughty list" to receive as much attention as our politicians are subjected to.

  2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "European judgments resulting from appeals cases can't be considered to have an effect in the UK until a British judge has observed them."

    But wasn't this referred to the ECJ by the High Court? That means that this one has already landed back with a British judge.

    Also, it's not entirely a matter for UK courts. The ruling must surely affect what's acceptable under the GDPR. If a post Brexit govt wants UK businesses to be able to handle personal data of EU customers - and there would be a serious economic impact if they couldn't - then UK businesses must be capable of meeting GDPR.

    1. Len Silver badge
      Holmes

      Don't worry. The most likely outcome of the Brexit shambles is that the UK will give up its right to create EU laws but will still be governed by them. Whatever happens, the ECJ will have your back.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So lets just get this straight.

    The High Court ruled that DRIPA was unlawful, meaning that the IPA can likewise be challenged as unlawful, so the government appealed and then escalated their appeal to the ECJ. The ECJ punts it back down to the national courts and says, in effect, "do it again".

    Had the ECJ not had any jurisdiction, the appeal court would more than likely have ruled that the high court's ruling was correct. After that, the only path the government would have had would be to appeal on technical grounds rather than on matters of law, which is generally on a hiding to nowhere.

    All the crowing yesterday about the fact that the ECJ had sent this issue back to the court of appeals seems to miss that, had the ECJ not had jurisdiction over this matter, the case would already have been settled in favour of privacy. The IPA would be open to easy challenge in court thanks to the precedent set. The ECJ's ruling now might leave enough wiggle room for the government to overturn the high court's ruling on appeal.

    And somehow this is considered a good thing, if the reaction to the previous article on the matter is any indication.

    1. SImon Hobson Silver badge

      The ECJ punts it back down to the national courts and says, in effect, "do it again"

      Not exactly, at least as I read it.

      As I read it, the Appeals Court were faced with a mater of interpretation regarding UK law and how it fits with EU regulations - and so referred the question up the the ECJ for their interpretation. The ECJ have now given their answer and passed that back down to the Appeals Court who now have to make a statement about the question they were originally asked.

      Presumably, the Appeals court will make a ruling that more or less mirrors that of the ECJ - and that will leave the UK government with a law that's been declared unlawful. They can appeal up again, or revise the law, or they can face a situation where the courts get tied up with pretty well every criminal prosecution case getting tied up in arguments about the prosecution using evidence obtained by willfully illegal means.

      I would hope that judges faces with the latter would be quite equivocal about not accepting it and making life very difficult.

    2. Ben Tasker Silver badge

      All the crowing yesterday about the fact that the ECJ had sent this issue back to the court of appeals seems to miss that, had the ECJ not had jurisdiction over this matter, the case would already have been settled in favour of privacy.

      You mean if we weren't part of the EU and weren't party to the EU Charter on Fundamental Human Rights, AKA the very basis for this challenge.

      Yes, it'd have been settled quickly, the courts would have said "Those EU rules don't apply here".

      So, yeah, it's a good thing

      1. Graham Dawson

        The European Charter of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, nor does it have anything to do with the ECJ. The ECHR is a treaty organisation that was drawn up by the European Council, an entirely separate organisation to the EU. Membership of the EU would not affect membership of the European Court of Human Rights or signatory status to the ECHR.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Except that membership of the EU requires membership of the ECHR/ECJ. If you aren't in the Eu and merely happen to be geographically in Europe then you can drop them.

          Russia and the UK are both in Europe, neither are going to be in the Eu anytime soon, their attitude to what foreigners tell them about human rights might become more similar

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Until last year, Russia accepted that ECHR stood over them. Their parliament (proprietor V. Putin) changed that by adding a "Constitutional Court " that can consider ECHR judgements (apparently they get hundreds, if not thousands, of cases a year from Russians) and rule that they do not need to be implemented if they are 'incompatible' with the constitution.

            At the time it was speculated that an ECHR judgement that €1.9 billion had to be paid to shareholders of the Yukos Oil company might have prompted it.

          2. Graham Dawson

            That may be so, but it's largely irrelevant to the discussion. This case wasn't brought under the echr and had nothing to do with it. My argument was to correct the claim that our membership of the echr had any relation to our membership of the eu, along with the related claim that this case had anything to do with the European Court of human rights.

            In fact we were a founder member of the Council of Europe, which created the ECHR, before the coal and steel union even existed.

          3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            "Except that membership of the EU requires membership of the ECHR/ECJ. If you aren't in the Eu and merely happen to be geographically in Europe then you can drop them."

            The Good Friday agreement also requires membership.

  4. Bob Wheeler

    Still debating the same points, again

    All the above points have been raised and debated so many times. I really don't understand why the Government just does not go back and amend the act to included the safe guards that any data retained can only be accessed on the production of a Judge's court order.

    It's a similar problem with the RIPA act, far too many public bodies could access information on the nod of the their bosses rather then via a Court Order.

    1. Tom Chiverton 1

      Re: Still debating the same points, again

      "All the above points have been raised and debated so many times. I really don't understand why the Government just does not go back and amend the act "

      The *whole point* of the DRIP and IP bills is to legalised the (pre-existing) indiscriminate mass surveillance that Snowden and others revealed was happening, in absence of law, oversight etc.

      As it turns out, those activities they seek to legalise are incompatible with leaving in a free, fair and function democracy. Never mind fundamental rights to privacy (remember, the EU rights just enshrine UN principles). But Our Glorious Leader has hitched her self to the "something must be done. Terrorist blah blah blah" wagon and so has no way out (such as an appeal to expert opinion).

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Still debating the same points, again

      "I really don't understand why the Government just does not go back and amend the act to included the safe guards that any data retained can only be accessed on the production of a Judge's court order."

      The problem lies not with the access but with retaining the data in the first place. In principle the assumption is that you're guilty and it's just a procedural matter. In practical terms you're relying on the likes of TalkTalk to keep it safe. In financial terms you're also dumping the costs of it on your ISP who will then dump it on you.

    3. Jason 24

      Re: Still debating the same points, again

      Because the bad guys are absolutely going to wait for a judge to say that they can access the data.

      It's not about having the correct procedures for law abiding citizens to adhere to, it's about collecting vast quantities of personal information with no reason to beyond "it could help".

      If this amount of data is accessible to anyone, then it is potentially accessible to the bad guys as well.

      On the other hand if the plod are only collecting data relevant to people who are under suspicion then the less huge vault of data becomes much less attractive.

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Still debating the same points, again

      "amend the act to included the safe guards that any data retained can only be accessed on the production of a Judge's court order."

      Not enough. Amend the act so that the data can only be retained on the production of a Judge's order. The objectionable part of this is that it disregards the presumption of innocence.

  5. Paul Johnson 1

    Living under a permanent caution

    You have the right to remain off the Internet, but if you do use the Internet, anything you do will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you.

    1. moiety

      Re: Living under a permanent caution

      Poetically put. There should be a gold-plated super-special "comment of the day" upvote for occasions like this. Alas there isn't, so you only get a normal one.

    2. Adrian 4 Silver badge

      Re: Living under a permanent caution

      Not limited to the internet.

      If the argument that 'it's useful' carries the day, it surely works just as well for recording phone conversations, facial recognition from CCTV, ANPR, and any other data you want to think of.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Living under a permanent caution

      But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned you relied on being off the internet as a means of hiding your thought crime.

  6. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
    Coat

    The IPA, huh?

    Sounds like a bitter brew for the government to swallow, all right.

  7. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    Don't be cowed by terrorists

    I see T May is urging us not to be cowed by terroriists. As far as I can tell, the only people cowed by terrorists are the editors of certain 'newspapers' and the government. The IPA is un-necessary, knee-jerk legislation, introduced by a weak government, too frightened of being called soft on terrorism by the editor of the Daily Heil to fight for the fundamental freedoms that the terrorists want removed.. The Government is dong their work for them.

    I say fec the government and fec the terrorists.

  8. AegisPrime

    Get yourself an early Xmas present...

    tunnelbear.com are doing a yearly subscription for $39.99 at the moment and look to be one of the better VPNs. You can use them via a browser plugin or a phone/desktop client. Their privacy policy's pretty good too (unlike some free VPNs I've used).

    They don't allow Bittorrent so if that's a factor they're not the VPN for you but all your browsing will be covered. Disgusting that ad/tracker-blocking+VPN+ProtonMail would seem to be essential for exercising your 'freedom' on the internet these days.

    1. Yes Me Silver badge

      Re: Get yourself an early Xmas present...

      Until the May dictatorship decides to outlaw Tunnelbear, that is.

      Sadly, using Tunnelbear from outside the UK condemns one to be geolocated in Slough, the last place I'd choose personally (with apologies to proud residents of Slough).

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Get yourself an early Xmas present...

        Sadly, using Tunnelbear from outside the UK condemns one to be geolocated in Slough

        Great, let the spooks all think we're in Slough and then, pace Betjeman:

        Come, lovely bombs, and fall on Slough

    2. paulnick2

      Re: Get yourself an early Xmas present...

      tunnel has minimum number or servers as well as it doesnt have multiple multi logins. Comparatively purevpn has 5 logins with 550+ servers. Do you still think about the tunnel?

  9. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Mass surveillance?

    Nah, we're targeting.

    Targeting everyone...

  10. Adam 52 Silver badge

    "but e.g. for missing persons investigations where serious crime may not yet be suspected."

    This annoys me, because he's twisting the argument around. *Some* data is useful to the *investigating shift* for a *high risk* missing person and is available through RIPA. It doesn't mean we need *all* data available the *everyone*, which is what the new legislation gives.

    He's giving the civil liberties people enough rope to hang themselves [sorry for the juxtaposition for those who've had a high risk mispa] and they probably will.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    On usefulness

    Mr Anderson is quoted as saying:

    "access to retained traffic and location data is extremely useful to the police and other law enforcement authorities, not only in the investigation of serious crime but e.g. for missing persons investigations where serious crime may not yet be suspected."

    That is an argument which is repeated at multiple points in the article. What is not discussed however, is whether it is justified.

    I think a personal experience of mine may be relevant here. I am currently involved in litigation against officials of the administration of a EU state, with the state being subsidiarily responsible. The crimes of which they are accused are serious (prison sentences of up to eight years are possible) and socially and politically sensitive. Had someone of lesser means than myself been the victim, it would have been a life-changing event for them--not exactly a positive one.

    If data retention of the sort envisaged by DRIPA had been in place at the time, it would have been much easier for me, and for the public prosecutor, to prove the full extent of the crimes committed, and there would be much less leeway for the judge to impose a more lenient sentence.

    In that sense, it cannot be argued that yes, indeed data retention would have been very useful.

    However, would it be justified? No. Not at all. Even though as a victim I might have individually benefited from it once, I am convinced this does not legitimise the loss of important rights, both at an individual and social level. After all, the privacy rights of the individuals that I accuse are as valid as mine.

    So if anyone is going to advocate data retention, please, not in my name.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: On usefulness

      Having everyone handcuffed to their own police officer isn't just necessary to reduce crime but is a vital safety feature in case of flooding or hurricane force winds - I can't see why everyone bleats on about their freedom.

  12. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Big Brother

    "access to retained traffic and location data is extremely useful to the police"

    "Police work is only easy in a police state." Joseph Wambaugh.

    Convenience should be about the last criteria for any kind of mass surveillance law.*

    *Drafted in the UK and introduced when the UK was Chair of the Commission by IIRC Charles Clarke in the wake of the Madrid train bombing (although the Spanish did not ask for or want it, possibly because they had a 1 party dictatorship under Franco).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "access to retained traffic and location data is extremely useful to the police"

      > introduced when the UK was Chair of the Commission by IIRC Charles Clarke in the wake of the Madrid train bombing (although the Spanish did not ask for or want it, possibly because they had a 1 party dictatorship under Franco).

      Although I understand your point, your wording is a bit unclear and makes it sound like the bombings (2012) occurred during the Franco dictatorship (1939-1975).

      In actual fact, at the time of the bombings, Spain was being ruled with an absolute majority by the conservative Popular Party, widely considered to be the ideological successor of the dictatorship (indeed, it was founded and controlled by Francoist officials, many of which joined its ranks). They lost the elections shortly afterwards.

      At the same time (this relies partially on personal knowledge), Spanish police prefer to concentrate their resources on following and investigating targets of interest and to my knowledge they have never supported indiscriminate data collection. Basically, they don't want to know about you unless they need to know about you.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: "access to retained traffic and location data is extremely useful to the police"

        "Basically, they don't want to know about you unless they need to know about you."

        Which is exactly as it should be. Let the law enforcement concentrate on the known bad guys instead of messing around with "ooh shiny" levels of data collection, because they can.

        Oh look. The murderous dick-in-a-truck in Germany was "known to the authorities" and "slipped off the radar". Again. And again. And again.

        If we want to have any pretence of safety, the authorities need to be better funded so they can do a better job with the intelligence they have now, not given new toys and wholly unnecessary new powers that can only serve to make the job that much harder thanks to the signal to noise ratio falling off a cliff.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: "access to retained traffic and location data is extremely useful to the police"

          "Which is exactly as it should be. Let the law enforcement concentrate on the known bad guys instead of messing around with "ooh shiny" levels of data collection, because they can."

          Not forgetting, of course, that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the EU in recent years have been carried out by people who are "known bad guys".

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: "access to retained traffic and location data is extremely useful to the police"

            > that the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the EU in recent years have been carried out by people who are "known bad guys".

            Exactly so if the police and security services had been able to monitor all communications in the UK for the last 40years they might have been able to determine if there was any link between the IRA and Sinn Fein

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: "access to retained traffic and location data is extremely useful to the police"

              "Exactly so if the police and security services had been able to monitor all communications in the UK for the last 40years they might have been able to determine if there was any link between the IRA and Sinn Fein."

              I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or positing that all out surveillance is a good thing. So, to clarify, are you saying full on surveillance might have found that link more easily and quicker than properly targeted surveillance?

            2. Perfidious Albion

              Re: "access to retained traffic and location data is extremely useful to the police"

              With respect...

              "IF" "The police have been able to MONITOR the IRA (ETC)" HOW in Heck can they track them if they switch off recording CCTV when they fly to the UK ? ...... because I have letters from Manchester Police (and a digital recording of Perfidious Albion Judges) lying/claiming that the Recording CCTV that undoubtedly proved me innocent at Manchester International Airport (lying police/Judges say) "Was not recording", when we also have a letter from the Airport itself stating:- "The CCTV was recording" but that:- "No crime was recorded" where I was accused, and where I was attacked by police and hospitalized, and Police & Judges lied by telling me & my lawyer that:- "The CCTV does not record" when the Airport wrote to tell us that they delete it after 30 days if the police do not allow it to be retained?

              Basically; It records if you (the public) do something wrong, and it does not record when they (Public authorities) do something wrong. ITs the CCTV of a crime syndicate called Perfidious Albion.

    2. P. Lee Silver badge

      Re: "access to retained traffic and location data is extremely useful to the police"

      >Convenience should be about the last criteria for any kind of mass surveillance law.*

      But it is the first thing on the agenda for IT. It is a classic case of focusing on what is easy/measurable rather than what is hard/useful.

  13. MakingBacon

    Hi ho, hi ho .. to VPN we go!

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    UK Gov. Pack of...

    C....................ontrolling bastards!

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Too Late, Gone Dark

    Way too late, already gone dark. Czar May can see nothing, hell, even my isp's basic bandwidth monitoring can't even see what I am using. Gonna stay dark now regardless of this stupid law being amended or not.

  16. Wolfclaw Silver badge
    Big Brother

    DRIPA Needs An Overhaul

    Well if the Court of Appeal get the final say, they will rubber stamp it for the spooks. Not like we are trying to deport a terrorist, rapist or radical nutcase or anything and they will bend over backwards to block this if a cat is involved !

  17. scrubber
    Big Brother

    Protect yourself online ...

    ... from your own government.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just remind me...

    How many of Mother Theresa's previous actions been judged by a court as unlawful - I'm afraid I've lost count.

    It just re-enforces the message that laws are only for the little people.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How long before we get Cardassian courts in the UK?

    SISKO: They’ll be tried for their crimes under the Federation Code of Justice.

    DUKAT: And if they’re found innocent?

    SISKO: I doubt that they will, but if they are, they’ll be set free.

    DUKAT: How barbaric. On Cardassia, the verdict is always known before the trial begins. And it’s always the same.

    SISKO: In that case, why bother with a trial at all?

    DUKAT: Because the people demand it. They enjoy watching justice triumph over evil every time. They find it comforting.

    SISKO: Isn’t there ever a chance you might try an innocent man by mistake?

    DUKAT: Cardassians don’t make mistakes.

  20. Tom 7 Silver badge

    The data is just too valuable

    for anyone to be trusted with it.

    Organised crime spends a lot of effort getting people into the police force and I can see them now making sure there is someone in every ISP copying this data on a regular basis.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Useful for non-crime related things

    "Anderson, who has reviewed the use of terrorism legislation for other forms of crimes, added that "access to retained traffic and location data is extremely useful to the police and other law enforcement authorities"

    "Extremely useful", yes. Just like information collected about members of Congress by Hoover was very useful _to him_.

    His personal, secret, and obviously illegal archive kept him in power until his death.

    Anderson deliberately dismisses the idea of using being useful for actually solving existing crimes as for those you can get snooping rights by current legislation: Universal snooping is only useful for _other purposes_ than crime solving, all of them illegal.

    But of course that's the whole idea of this legislation, make them legal.

  22. Perfidious Albion

    Physical Evidence available of UK Crimes.

    Not only are they criminal Peeping Toms, but Perfidious Albion does not allow human rights IN PRACTICE for heterosexual white males and their families. Police Delete CCTV proving the innocence of such, and they persistently fabricate evidence that they were not allowed to put before a Crown Court, they assault you, hospitalise you and prevent you from getting defence evidence, and even try mislead your Lawyer, and provide such a story to them that even they cannot believe you are innocent of what you are accused (and are unable to even accept photographic evidence); even after official documentation proves police get rid of Witnesses who support you the accused. Furthermore, for decades the Judges who cover up the crimes of the police and Social Services are recorded committing Human Rights crimes, but the Judges even cover up Social Services trying to thieve your children, and tell you to "forget about it".

    So; my family and I moved to a country with the death penalty, because that disgusting Island is too unfit for ordinary families to live in. We had to close our business and sell the family home to emigrate.

    If you want the proof, you only need to ask; but the criminals in charge of the UK will wreck your family life also if you try and do anything about it.

    We have video, photographs, official documentation and Court voice recordings (Judges lying and denying us our Human Rights), and other evidence too substantial to list here.

    Historically; Probably the police (Chiefs) overlook the Judges crimes against young boys, so the police can (literally) get away with murder to the non-Jewish, non-Muslim non-gay working class.

  23. Slx

    Brexit means Brexit

    Don't worry! You'll soon be rid those meddling Eurocrats protecting you from your information-hungry government and then you can finally have state installed CCTV in all your bathrooms and those chip implants you've always wanted.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So who protects us from our Government ? Hitler and Stalin would have loved this. So will Trump. Any paranoid leader with an axe to grind will end up using this data. RIP democracy. We've learnt nothing from the 1930's. We have a generation that are sleepwalking into a dictatorship.

  25. JaitcH
    Unhappy

    Since when has GCHQ or the MI mob ever been bothered with the law?

    All the Mad MAY legislation did was to make everything that GCHQ and MI ever did legal.

    Where, I wonder, was the castration of Kenyan Freedom Fighters ever within the law?

  26. GrapeBunch Bronze badge

    North American reference

    "No soup for you! Would you like chips with that?"

  27. Paul Renault

    Shale Gas worse likely worse than coal.

    Minkia! I tried to read that ruling...gave up.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019