back to article Investigatory Powers Bill: A force for good – if done right?

To its credit the draft Investigatory Powers Bill seeks to substantially increase transparency around the powers that the authorities have to intercept our communications and hoover up everyone’s private data. To some extent, the current draft of the Bill achieves that laudable goal. The bad news is that this process has …

  1. Warm Braw

    So, exactly what does Lord Paul Strasburger propose to do?

    The new Bill must close all the old loopholes, and the new overly-broad powers that are in the current draft of the Bill must be eliminated if we are to avoid repeating this scandal of the Executive writing its own powers

    You're preaching to the converted on that score.

    What, however, do you intend to do about it? You're a member of the institution that passes laws. You can't just whine that no-one told you what they were doing with those laws- it's your job to find out. Are you intending to do something constructive? Are you prepared to renounce your cosy sinecure if this "scandal" isn't put right? Or are you going to just bray and bluster and keep taking the money and enjoying the cheap food and booze?

    1. nematoad
      Go

      Re: So, exactly what does Lord Paul Strasburger propose to do?

      Whatever the Noble Members decide to do they had better do it quickly. Or the "review" AKA revenge ordered by the PM after the Tax Credits fiasco will clip the House of Lords wings and make it difficult if not impossible to do their job. I.E. hold the Government to account and be a revising chamber.

    2. LordStras

      Re: So, exactly what does Lord Paul Strasburger propose to do?

      Thank you, Warm Braw, for your comment which suggests that you have no idea what I do in the Lords and what I get paid. I receive no salary whatever but get £300 for each day I go to the Lords chamber. However most of my work is done elsewhere and so I don't get paid for it. I will get nothing for the many days I worked at home over the holidays and last weekend reading 1,000+ pages of written submissions and preparing for the next two meetings of the Investigatory Powers Bill committee.

      You ask what I propose to do. The answer is more of what I have been doing, which is to fight to protect UK citizens from being treated like criminals and being subject to excessive surveillance. I will do so in the committee and later this year (with my Lib Dem colleagues) when the Bill comes to the Lords for full scrutiny and amendment.

      Watch Parliament TV on Wednesday when Theresa May is giving evidence to the committee.

      1. Warm Braw

        Re: So, exactly what does Lord Paul Strasburger propose to do?

        I am aware how members of the Lords are remunerated and that you claim to be in parliament on average 3 days a week receiving, on each day, more than a carer in my local nursing home earns in a week. I realise that your background is such that the money is simply loose change, but most people would consider you very well recompensed.

        However, that aside, I'm afraid that "I'm going to ask some jolly stiff questions in the House" doesn't really cut it as a response to this bill. It's clear from the drafting of the Bill that it's intended to incorporate everything that the security services already do and add in everything that they might want to do in future. No amount of time will suffice to debate the Bill because it essentially authorises the Home Secretary to issue orders of almost unlimited scope. Until the Home Secretary issues those orders, we don't know what they'll be for and when she does we won't know they exist. We don't know what information wil be asked for, we don't know how much it will cost and the whole point of the Bill is to avoid being specific. Amendments won't fix that. And I'm afraid it seems that most of your parliamentary colleagues are just fine with that.

        If you really want to defeat this Bill in parliament then it's only going to be done by very unparliamentary delaying tactics (the only weapon in the armoury would appear to be the expiry of DRIPA at the end of 2016) and despite your odd brush with the rules, that doesn't sound like your style. There's more chance of success outside parliament - potentially in the ECHR, but also possibly via the same European (ECJ) route that saw the end of "Safe Harbour" - but the Bill would have to have become law first. Perhaps if some prominent Internet companies were to threaten to withdraw certain parts of their operations from the UK or offer circumvention measures, that might have a positive effect: I don't think it's something they're likely to say without some encouragement, however, especially since both main parties seem to be in at least tacit support of the proposed powers.

        It would be nice to think that politicians might be persuaded of the error of their ways by means of evidence and a well-constructed argument, but I don't know of any evidence to suggest that is possible.

        1. LordStras

          Re: So, exactly what does Lord Paul Strasburger propose to do?

          Warm Braw, I agree with much of what you say about the Bill and will do my best against the odds.

          Regarding your rant about my income, I have calculated that I am paid less than the Minimum Wage when you take account of all the hours I work unpaid, but I don't complain about it. So please stop hectoring me.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: So, exactly what does Lord Paul Strasburger propose to do?

            I work unpaid, but I don't complain about it. So please stop hectoring me.

            FX: Sound of sad, sad violin music. But you won't be getting much sympathy for this round these parts.

            But since we're both here, how come you're complaining about the Snoopers Charter, but your lot were clearly complicit in all of the Very Bad Stuff that has been going on for years, as they were sitting round the cabinet table for five years whilst this was all going on?

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: So, exactly what does Lord Paul Strasburger propose to do?

          I'm afraid that "I'm going to ask some jolly stiff questions in the House" doesn't really cut it as a response to this bill. Warm Braw

          Whilst Warm Braw may be "aware how members of the Lords are remunerated" they are seemingly unaware of how things work. About the only thing an individual member of the HoL's (or Common's for that matter) can do is to ask some questions and hope that they and the answers elicited cause a stir among other members, who will then be prepared to agree to the HoL's deploying the tools available to it.

      2. Vic

        Re: So, exactly what does Lord Paul Strasburger propose to do?

        I receive no salary whatever but get £300 for each day I go to the Lords chamber.

        Would you like to trade places with me?

        Vic.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: So, exactly what does Lord Paul Strasburger propose to do?

          @Vic "Would you like to trade places with me?" - do you actually work in IT? :)

          I would have to take a pay cut if I were to work in the HoL's the number of days Paul Strasburger typically does. On a typical work day in London, I will incur around £130 of expenses, before I consider stepping into a bar for a drink or a restaurant for meal. This figure also omits work related overheads, which would add another £20~30 per day to this figure.

          1. Vic

            Re: So, exactly what does Lord Paul Strasburger propose to do?

            do you actually work in IT?

            When I work, I do.

            I would have to take a pay cut if I were to work in the HoL's the number of days Paul Strasburger typically does

            Would you?

            I reckon I could do substantially all of an IT job whilst at the HoL, meaning most of that attendance allowance is simple profit. And for those days I need to go to customer site - I wouldn't be sanctioned in any way for not turning up at the House...

            Vic.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In an ideal world what you have said would be the way we would go in a democratic society however we don't live in a democratic society. The society we live in consists of jack johnson and john jackson both appear to be different yet they still push the same agenda and for this reason the IPB will be pushed through government regardless of what the people may want.

    These powers have nothing to do with stopping terrorists or peados, they are just another way for the government to control the people by knowing everything about them or at least alluding to the fact that they do (my personal internet usage for the last six months hits a good 45gb, technically speaking how on earth are you going to record all that for an estimated 58m people?)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I used the 'C' word

      "These powers have nothing to do with stopping terrorists or peados, they are just another way for the government to control the people"

      I live in a country that had a 'C' recently. I posted a reply here that used that 'C' word, I clicked submit, there was a long delay and a censorship page came up. I then tried reading elReg main site, and a censorship page came up again.

      I then switched to 3G and submitted again. It seems to be just me on my ISP. I'll have to avoid using the C word in case my 3G connection goes the same way.

      This is what Britain will be like, now that the surveillance is disclosed, the poice will visit if you download a DDOS tool, or use the 'C' word, or anything else that triggers some pre-crime.

      Ahh but if we call it "radicalizing speech", that makes it OK?

      I read an article "how do we stop terrorists recruiting on the internet", it said that the recruitment videos were flashing and amazing, and didn't provide a link. So I searched, watched one, and it was a crap.

      How many British citizens would have been free to do that search and visit that link and see that they were being fed a lie? It would put you on a watch list, you'd have to think very carefully.

      Radicalizing? Words so amazing that they you can't counter them with truths?? Or just some bullshit dreamt up to explain mass surveillance and censorship in the wake of Snowden!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That's simple, really. You throttle any data communication beyond your capacity to store.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Quote: The new Bill must close all the old loopholes

    The new Bill must close all the old loopholes

    It does not. _ANY_ section giving _UNCONTROLLED_ discretion to the home secretary is a loophole in the making. The bill has even more of these than its predecessor - the RIPA.

    Fixing those will require 40+ amendments which retain the operational discretion authority, but give the courts (and/or parliament) the final say in approving it long term and that is not happening on Treasonous May watch.

    1. Adam 52 Silver badge

      Re: Quote: The new Bill must close all the old loopholes

      ...and a Bill to control the government that requires DPP (ie government) consent to prosecutions... how well is that going to work then?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Quote: The new Bill must close all the old loopholes

      There's a strong possibility that there will be no changes to the IP Bill as they seem to be rushing it through again

      https://twitter.com/LordStras/status/702135620362227713

      Sadly much as I predicted here http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2016/02/11/joint_committee_investigatory_powers_bill_shoot_the_messenger/#c_2776777

      I really hope I'm wrong

  4. Disgruntled of TW
    Mushroom

    This is not a Security vs Privacy debate ...

    ... this is a Liberty vs Control debate. By foregoing a grown up discussion of the benefits of monitoring, we neither validate or reject the business case. We are wasting time considering implementation options with judicial oversight. Hearing those that request these invasive powers repeatedly provide hyperbole such as "we can't tell you, it's national security" is utter nonsense. In the absence of such public proof, and the associated business case our government should not be asking us to give up our privacy to them in this way. Through repeated data security blunders, our government has demonstrated an inability to manage our data safely. They have not earned our trust. Snowdon has provided evidence of how our government has indeed undermined our trust.

    Why has Ms May not been held to account for her use of the draconian "because I say so" loopholes in the Telecommunication Act? She is a politician, not a member of the judiciary. Hold her to account.

    Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

  5. Afernie
    Unhappy

    A force for good if done right?

    But it won't be. Because these things never, ever are.

    1. P. Lee

      Re: A force for good if done right?

      >But it won't be. Because these things never, ever are.

      The road to Hell is paved with good intentions - and in any case, our politicians don't even have those.

      All that is left is the will to power.

  6. JimmyPage Silver badge
    FAIL

    Yes Minister ...

    there was an episode of Yes Minister where the hapless Hacker found that something had been agreed by his department which turned out to be politically embarrassing.

    He calls in Sir Humphry, gives him a carpeting, and insists he is notified of everything going on in the department. Sir Humphry seems reluctant, which only increases Hackers resolve.

    The next day, Hacker gets 5 red boxes, and takes all night to read them. Memos about staff rotas, pencil quotas ... as Hackers wife pointed out, by demanding to see *everything* Hacker had allowed Humphry to drown him in minutia.

    Which is why my response to all this data-hoovering is "bring it on"

    1. Disgruntled of TW

      Re: Yes Minister ...

      @JimmyPage and when somebody else drops in some "extra bits" into the hoovered data they have on you, what do you do then?

      You have precisely no proof you didn't go there, and they have the logs.

      If you weren't monitored "by default" in the first place, this scenario can't happen. Privacy is an individual's right, not a right the government is required to grant, or authorised to take away.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yes Minister ...

        "Privacy is an individual's right, not a right the government is required to grant, or authorised to take away."

        I have an entry in my medical record that has all blank fields except for the date and comments section. The medical details are missing, as is the name of the person who put it there. The comment (and I quote) is "prison ???". That entry cost me a second mortgage and five maxed out credit cards to fight when I had an RTA that wasn't my fault.

        My wife gave up after two years. I fought on for another three. The end result: after being hit by a revoked licence driver, £45k of debt. He was back on the road in six months. The medical entry cannot be removed. It was proved in court that I was not in that female prison (I have a cock) but all that can be done is to have the record amended to say I don't agree with it. The medical entry that is. I like my cock.

        Oh, and I got sacked because one of the legal teams sent my boss that entry asking if he could clarify.

        Be afraid folks. Be very afraid. If you have nothing to hide then you will have, even if you didn't know it.

  7. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Big Brother

    We're looking in the wrong direction

    These powers have fuck all to do with trying to predict and intercept *future* terrorist activity, and everything to do with accessing historical data to haver dirt on any and all who oppose the Eye of Sauron.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    nothing short of major scandal

    and yet - no sword-falling, no sorrys, no punches exchanged in that house by the Thames. Funny, eh?

    p.s. yesterday my friend from abroad reflected that the Yank reporters sometimes do a decent job, exposing this or that. And the CIA and other 3-letter "agencies" carry on as usual. That's democracy for you, I said: you can expose anything you like, it means shit.

    1. Holleritho

      Re: nothing short of major scandal

      You have to be ashamed at what you are exposed as doing for any change to happen. The three-letter agencies (and their brother agencies in every other country) are not ashamed, indeed, feel completely justified.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: nothing short of major scandal

      What is needed now is an investigation into which politicians knew this kind of spying was going on and still lied that it would have prevented the latest terrorist atrocity if only it was going on.

      Drummer Lee Rigby deserves that.

      1. BoldMan

        Re: nothing short of major scandal

        and what do you think that will achieve? That would be just another side-show to distract from the nitty gritty of the problem... THEY ARE SPYING ON US AND WE HAVE NO POWER TO MAKE THEM STOP!!!

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's a coup

    They seized law making power from Parliament. Parliament is the law making body of the country. The Lords is the top court that interprets those laws.

    GCHQ imposed a false interpretation of an old law. FALSE. It knows its false because it kepts it secret from Parliament. People who were briefed on the program were sworn to secrecy even from THE TOP LAW MAKING BODY. What they did with that law could never have been Parliaments intention.

    Cameron, May, they all knew, they kept it secret. All of then elected under the distorted world of surveillance.

    And not just surveillance, interference. It's clear that these fooking traitors have been reporting to NSA, and NSA knew about this program. Obama gets his briefing and it includes THEIR TRAITOROUS deeds, and that extreme pro-surveillance, anti-voter shift that's happened, that was this influence.

    Cameron was elected, because he was allowed to be elected.

    Now Cameron wants to codify it in law. Only he removes the 3 privacy inspectors, leaving only a judge.

    So NO FEEDBACK loop, they grab data [for terrorism] and use it [for political control] and no mechanism to check that. And Parliament no longer decides who can have what data under what circumstance, checked by what law, what penalties and what courts. Instead a judge given minimal information signs off on it, and that data feed is then used on a TRUST-ME basis. Trust you? After this? No.

    And if you do wrong what is the penalty? None! And who would find out? Nobody.

    There was ONE Snowden among you. One! You didn't even tell Parliament. That's how much integrity you lot have, how much you yield to the democracy.

    And as for Andy Burnham, why is he so quiet?? Did he visit Motherless instead of Mumsnet and now he's scared of them? Get a spine u useless excuse for an MP and do your opposition job.

    1. BoldMan

      Re: It's a coup

      This isn't just Cameron - read the original article, it says

      > Among the powers that the Home Office has awarded itself over the last 15 years are

      So it was started by Blair and Brown and the Tory twunts just kept it going. Cameron was elected because there was no viable Labour alternative, not because of some secret conspiracy - well unless making Labour unelectable after a decade of incompetence in power was the conspiracy?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's a coup

        It was started under Blair, and Cameron was elected because he was acceptable.

        I'm sure if he wasn't, somebody with enough surveillance information, as ludicrous as this sounds, could find some, say beastiality or similar and leaked it against him.

        See my comment about Andy Burnham: All men view porn on the net, all male politicians deny it. Right there we have the basis for leverage. Two politicans one cup. Cameron got the cup, if he didn't we could be watching his reaction video from his own phone.

        As for the USA, I'd caution them not to be so glib.

        They're facing another US election, and if US hasn't secured its networks, and those voting/counting machines are hacked the way Juniper Routers are hacked, how can we trust the vote?

        Simply imagine if Juniper Routers were hacked by FSA, how much would FSA like to choose a President?

        Cameron was elected under the surveillance regime, his leadership is tainted.

        1. Vic
          Joke

          Re: It's a coup

          Simply imagine if Juniper Routers were hacked by FSA, how much would FSA like to choose a President?

          s/FSA/FSB/g

          Vic.

  10. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "The new Bill must close all the old loopholes, and the new overly-broad powers that are in the current draft of the Bill must be eliminated if we are to avoid repeating this scandal of the Executive writing its own powers."

    That's an overly-broad statement. We need more specific requirements. Here's my suggestion.

    1. The presumption of innocence is an important principle in English law. A corollary of that is that, whilst an investigator will necessarily regard individuals as suspects prior to conviction, the population as a whole must not be treated as suspects. Mass surveillance is not an unacceptable means of investigation.

    2. Any interception must require a warrant.

    3. It is unacceptable that a warrant be granted by a politician or by an official of the investigating body. It must be granted by a judge or magistrate.

    4. There must be a regulatory oversight of the process over and above that provided by the independent granting of warrants

    5. The regulatory oversight should review the outcomes of intercepts. The percentage of significant outcomes should be compared against the sources of requests for warrants and against the granters of warrants. In the first case this would be to check for attempts to slip unjustified, overbroad requests through the system and in the second to check for regulatory capture. Suitable action should be taken in the event of the discovery of anomalies including withdrawal of the ability to make requests or to grant warrants. There should also be spot checks on the returns made for this statistical review.

    6. The regulator should also respond to complaints from members of the public in regard to abuse of the interception powers.

    7. The regulator should have the power to act when abuses are discovered. Available actions should include requiring agencies to take disciplinary action, criminal proceedings and ordering public apologies and compensation to victims of such abuse.

    8. The regulator should publish regular reports including summaries of the statistical reporting, complaints and all actions taken in the event of abuse.

    If the regulator needs a motto "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" seems appropriate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Doctor Syntax

      You missed one key thing.

      Their plan: Warrants issued against CLASS of crime. So a judge approves a warrant to get, for example [Vodafones log data], on reason of [big scary bogeyman of the day].

      You could pretend that is a judicial check, with a warrant under your point 2. And that is what Cameron and May are pretending. It is not of course.

      If the judge was given specific targets, e.g. 20 john does, believed to be communicating with RRR on DDD. Then a judge would issue a minimized warrant for data related to RRR on DDD. Vodafone in that case would minimize the data to fit within the judges order.

      Vodafone would act as the enforcer of the judges order.

      Instead they want bulk access. A surveillance order that hands them [All Vodafone data] or some bulk data set. Which they promise to filter for RRR+DDD, but its just a promise.

      The judge in this case is just a tickbox. He could never have enough information to make a real judgement. Like the FISA court that approved access to data for particular purposes, only to find General Alexander had kept all the data and was freely using it in secret.

      So what happens next?

      Well UK has no meaningful checks and balances in its law, and no limits on who or where or what. So multinationals will be required to hand over all their data in all their foreign subsidiaries.

      Which means every country in the world will follow. I think its already too later, even if we stop this law, the fact the British have grabbed all this data under the 1984 act (which targetted British telecoms companies, but didn't limit the data grabbed to Britain... think Vodafone Germany), will mean everyone will want to follow.

      How happy are we if Microsoft has to hand all of its cloud data to China? Or British Phone logs to Russia? Just because these multinational companies have bases in those countries?

      That is what happens next. If they pass THE EXACT OPPOSITE of this law, then we might be able to stop it. i.e. force companies to NOT DISCLOSE bulk data, NEVER IN SECRET, on serious penalties.

      The next line of defense is encryption, compulsary encryption. We need our British data protected against this coming foreign data grab. Again Snoopers Charter kills encryption, it requires the company have a decrypted version of the data! ready for Russia and China to take too!

      I don't thnk the realize just what damage they've done already, and this law is a catastrophy.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: @Doctor Syntax

        "You missed one key thing."

        No.

        From point 5: "this would be to check for attempts to slip unjustified, overbroad requests through the system"

        One of the purposes of the checking layer would be to prevent what you're concerned about.

        A well-informed commentard on a thread some time ago pointed out than in some cases multiple warrants had to be sought to follow up on an initial warrant - IIRC an example was discovering that a suspect had a second mobile & another warrant had to be issued to cover that. It's likely that a warrant system that required undue follow-ups would be counter-productive - the judges would be overwhelmed with requests & not able to give due scrutiny. An effective system would need a sufficient degree of flexibility which is why I didn't suggest a specific granularity but a system of checks to countermand abuse.

    2. heyrick Silver badge

      Add another thing - a judge can only grant a maximum of X warrants in any 24 month period. This is to stop a judge that is overly sympathetic to bullshit or probe to rubber stamping.

      X being a value that is sensible to ensure circulation of judiciary without being ridiculous in either extreme.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "Add another thing - a judge can only grant a maximum of X warrants in any 24 month period. This is to stop a judge that is overly sympathetic to bullshit or probe to rubber stamping."

        What concerns you here is what's sometimes called regulatory capture, the judges being the first layer of regulation. If you look at point 5 you'll see that this is also checked for. The approach I've suggested is to check for outcomes.

        One could easily envisage a situation where a case has a large number of suspects The judge is presented with a request for warrants against all of them. I'm assuming that individual warrants would be issued for each suspect. This could eat up an undue proportion of your X without the judge being overly sympathetic to bullshit or rubber stamping. In fact, by having to read the background to the case once he could concentrate on wanting to know why there are so many suspects and requiring warrants to be vacated as soon as it became clear that a suspect was eliminated.

        Rationing the inputs wouldn't be as effective as reviewing the outcomes.

    3. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: That's an overly-broad statement. We need more specific requirements.

      @Doctor Syntax

      I take it you haven't actually read the draft bill?

      Because the way the bill is currently drafted is very broad and open to abuse through the (undemocratic) use of Statutory Instruments by politicians. As SI's will be needed, in great number, to clarify the many overtly broad statements made in the draft. So in the first instance, I'm all for tightening up on the draft before we start to add further requirements into the bill.

  11. Graham Bartlett

    Alternatively...

    If you want to avoid whoever's in charge doing illegal stuff, call them on it. Not just in terms of *don't do it again" - actually get the police involved.

    The Lib Dems spent years living alongside the Conservatives in power. It simply isn't credible that you didn't know this was going on on your watch. So you're complicit in this too. Perhaps not you personally, but your political party at the highest levels, definitely.

    I spent 20 years voting Lib Dem, because in spite of your slightly-chaotic organisation I always believed that your party had some moral character. Cohabiting with the Conservatives killed that, and all these things coming out about what went on under your joint leadership of the country have properly put the tin lid on it. Perhaps I'll be voting Lib Dem again when all the current leadership have retired, but not until then.

    1. Richard Wharram

      Re: Alternatively...

      They did know it was going on (the top few) and expressed concern but were gagged. However they did the decent thing of blocking the Snooper's Charter. That puts them leagues above the Tories and Labour in my eyes.

      Pity they elected Tim Farron though. He's a cock :(

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Alternatively...

      "actually get the police involved"

      I wouldn't hold up hope there. The police likely had access that surveillance data. There have been cases where the police appeared to have bulk surveillance data, unrelated to crimes.

      e.g. they visited people who had downloaded a DDOS tool, not *used it*, but *downloaded it*. And yet the police had all their details, as if downloading a piece of software is a crime in itself!

      That may be one of these cases.

      Section 94.4 of the Telecoms act of 1984 states "The Secretary of State shall lay before each house of Parliament, a copy of every direction given under this section unless he is of the opinion that disclosure ... is against national security"

      So for 15 years, all these people have been dipping into a mass surveillance database, all the while its been kept secret from Parliament. That "national security" isn't excusible when its being going for so long, and so widespread and out of control.

      http://www.itnews.com.au/news/british-cops-arrest-six-for-using-lizard-stresser-ddos-tool-408588

      Quote: "British police are also visiting around 50 addresses they say are linked to people registered on the Lizard Stresser website even though they are not thought to have carried out DDoS attacks.

      Many of the individuals receiving police visits are under 20. The NCA said it was part of an effort to dissuade young people from entering into serious forms of cyber crime."

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Alternatively...

      "If you want to avoid whoever's in charge doing illegal stuff, call them on it. Not just in terms of *don't do it again" - actually get the police involved."

      It's nice in theory but we're well past that. All the police are good for is a crime number. First time I was mugged I was accused of buying heroin. Turned out I was mugged by a heroin dealer. Second time I was mugged the CCTV was facing the wrong way. What? The immovable CCTV on the station. Er, sorry, we actually meant out of order.

      The first time I was ever mugged though was by two police officers in Liverpool. "Admit to this crime or we'll remand you" day before my exams at Uni.

      Or there was the time the road tax ran out on a car I'd sold. 30 minutes after midnight they were at my door. Perhaps the time my car got stolen - 3 bleedin' times and they were disappointed to discover yet again I wasn't driving it. Nothing like learning from the previous two events is there. Big fat thumb print on my rear-view mirror. Can't take the mirror off. Oh no. Whole car has to be impounded for which I have to pay for. Fuck off.

      There was one noticeable time the police were absent. That was when my mate was stabbed through the heart by his drunken ex-girlfriend in front of his young daughter.

      Perhaps another friend? Blew his own head off with a shotgun. Not like the local bobby hadn't been warned he was depressed. Yeah. Keep that gun.

      14 year old nutter on a Motor Guzzi? Case of whiskey to local plod will solve that. If that one had been knocked on the head then his magistrate mother would not have had to use her influence in later years for him to keep his drunken licence past 12 points after which he died pranging a Z650 - which the police gave back to him whilst awaiting court.

      "Gilly" died on an open road, killed by a known alcoholic. Nothing happened.

      When it came to "Rapey Pete" we'd figured out the law was useless so we just chased him away. Apologies to any girls he might have raped in other towns.

      Thank you British police.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wrote a script at the end of last year which uses sockets to connect to a random website from a list of 1,600 every few minutes.

    I activated it at the start of the year. We're now 11 days in, and it's clocked just under 6,000 junky visits.

    The establishment can have fun figuring out which sites are ones I did visit at the time, and which aren't.

    1. John G Imrie

      The establishment can have fun figuring out which sites are ones I did visit at the time, and which aren't.

      You visited all of them, it's in the logs, please come this way citizen, room 101 awaits.

      1. Anonymous Noel Coward

        That's the idea, though.

        By the end of the year, my ISP should have logged about 300,000 junky visits.

    2. Gordon 10

      Care to GitHub it?

      1. Anonymous Noel Coward

        It's in mIRC script. I'm sure someone could do better, though.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The worst thing about this bill is that it legitimises all of this surveillance. At least if it's seen as illegal, that in itself adds some control in it's practical use. If legitimised then everyone everywhere can be taken to court for *something* on a whim of the authorities and that sets the stage for some Really Bad Times. I've probably broken 10 laws unknowingly today without leaving the chair; and I'm only on the second coffee....

  14. swampdog

    Intelligence & Evidence

    You can't legislate for it. Let the Intelligence community do as they will (because they will anyway) but instead make a legal distinction between intelligence and evidence. That is an area where you can legislate.

    The Intelligence community *must* do whatever it sees fit. Once there are rules the "enemy" will manipulate that knowledge to their advantage. It follows there can be no rules in that respect.

    If I know something about a person/situation I can choose to keep it to myself or make it public. The former is intelligence. The latter is evidence. If I know a person might kill another person in the next few months I might keep that to myself. If I know they are going to kill in the next few minutes I still might keep it to myself *if* I knew/considered worse things would result.

    A Democracy needs to present a balance but how to solve the above problem? Present a Bill, that can't be watered down by Statutory Instruments & the like.

    No intelligence can be presented as evidence. That's not to say intelligence can't become evidence. No intelligence prior to the first evidence is admissible. The key is timing. GCHQ can choose to sit on facts or pass a hint onto the police who then gather evidence.

    It is hard enough these days to trust politicians. What we don't need is the fear they've been persuaded to vote in a certain way simply to avoid some 15yr old altercation coming out. This would stop that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Intelligence & Evidence

      "No intelligence can be presented as evidence." particularly if has a 45 minute timeline attached ...

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: Intelligence & Evidence

      How would having no rules for spooks stop politicians from being pressured?

      1. swampdog

        Re: Intelligence & Evidence

        "How would having no rules for spooks stop politicians from being pressured?"

        It would be no worse than now but they'd be unable to present it as evidence. Either they pass the intelligence to the police who can retrospectively dig up evidence on their own or they keep quiet. In the latter instance the MP can't be pressured.

        Pig face porn. Either it's a titillating red-top story or it's true. In the latter case the security services are covering up a crime. If MP's can't be pressured then other MP's would ensure the truth came out, if only for political gain. If it's false then the PM has nothing to be concerned about.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: Intelligence & Evidence

          That's the current situation now with regards to judicial evidence... Phone tap recordings aren't admissible. It doesn't work.

          The press can be used to pressure a politician so what you propose is no protection either.

  15. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    FAIL

    "..process has revealed 5 extremely intrusive powers" "is nothing short of a major scandal."

    Correct.

    It is.

    Will you do anything about it?

    Will you find out who bypassed both Houses and effectively treated Parliament with (complete) contempt.

    I doubt it was the Home Secretary of the time who initiated this, as I doubt they even understand what they were being told (if indeed they were told anything) about it.

    Let's keep in mind this didn't stop 7/7 or the killing of Lee Rigby despite both groups being on this system and it's supposed justification being the prevention of such incidents.

    So how big an incident does it have to be before "the system" actually starts flagging a serious danger?

    7/7 took 54 victims. What's the limit before the potential body count of an incident will be investigated? 60? 70? 100 potential victims?

  16. A Ghost

    2015 was the internet's 'high water mark'

    “It seems like a lifetime, or at least a Main Era — the kind of peak that never comes again. San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run... but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant...

    There was madness in any direction, at any hour. You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning...

    And that, I think, was the handle — that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply PREVAIL. There was no point in fighting — on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave...

    So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high water mark — that place where the wave finally broke, and rolled back.”

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 2015 was the internet's 'high water mark'

      up-voted for Dr. Hunter S. Thompson quote :)

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Secret law is anathema to democracy...

    These laws that pass should NOT allow for ANY interpretation by security/law enforcement agencies. What can and cannot be done should be clearly laid out in law. Anything else is an abdication of representative democracy, which supposed to be the system of government we live under.

    Otherwise you end up with the security bureaucracy exploiting these laws, because they can and because bureaucracy always votes to give itself MORE power.

    This is just like all the post-PATRIOT Act shenanigans here in the U.S., which shocked many of the creators of that law.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Secret law is anathema to democracy...

      It is funny to read comments here. When you Brits are being shafted (and in many ways, the rest of the world) you're very calm. When it's the US being shafted (and again, the rest of the world), it's gnashing of teeth and rending of flesh by you guys. What gives? We're all getting survielled by everyone and we should be angry about it. I would have expected 50 or 60 comments from angry commentards by now.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Secret law is anathema to democracy...

        FYI--I'm American/Yank/'Murican whatever "they" are calling us now. :)

        (Paris--since we don't have an Old Glory icon and Paris is almost as much of an American institution :) )

        1. Mark 85

          Re: Secret law is anathema to democracy...

          Apologies... I should have said "the Brits" instead of "you Brits". I still find the vitriol (and the number of comments) more intense when NSA, US is mentioned than when GCHQ or Parliament, etc. goes off on this.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Secret law is anathema to democracy...

        "When you Brits are being shafted (and in many ways, the rest of the world) you're very calm."

        At present the matter is before Parliament. Despite what happens in PMQs florid displays of anger are likely to be counter-productive. A better tactic is presenting reasoned and reasonable arguments as ammunition for any sympathetic politicians who might be listening (as I hope Lord Strasburger still is despite the reception he was given).

  18. LucreLout

    Sunset Clauses

    The answer is that Home Office lawyers dug up obscure and very broad clauses in Acts that were passed long before the modern Internet was born, and then exploited them in ways that were never intended or envisaged by their original authors.

    It is for this very reason that I believe MOST primary legislation should have an accompanying sunset clause such that old acts are forcibly updated for the modern age, and preventing abuse of loopholes aimed at dead industries from curtailing or adversely impacting future industries yet to be envisaged.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ Lord Paul

    I agree that the added transparency the Bill brings and the closing of previous loopholes are a good thing. But there were some other issues with previous legislation, specifically RIPA, that this Bill does not address.

    The two biggest problems with the Bill as it stands, IMHO, are:

    1) There are no penalties for misuse of the powers granted.

    We saw Poole Council mis-using RIPA to spy on a family to see if they did actually live within the catchment area of the school they had applied to. What will be done to prevent similar mis-use in future?

    2) There is no mandatory reporting regime specified.

    All bodies using the legislation should be required to file an annual report including a detailed statistical breakdown of the number of requests by type of crime and number of prosecutions. This report need not be public, but should be to an independent panel of judges specifically tasked to judge the effectiveness of the legislation. This panel should be independent of the panel of judges that will be approving interception requests.

    I realise that interceptions made in one year may not result in convictions or even arrests the same year, but over time it should be possible to build a statistical picture of the number of successful prosecutions versus the number and 'broadness' of interception requests. That information should summarised and be made public.

    1. Vic

      Re: @ Lord Paul

      All bodies using the legislation should be required to file an annual report including a detailed statistical breakdown of the number of requests by type of crime and number of prosecutions. This report need not be public

      The overall statistics should be, We don't need details of the actual suspects, but if 20,000 "investigations" have occurred, and just one oik was charged for putting his recycling bin out on rubbish-bin day, we need to know about that...

      Vic.

  20. David Pollard

    Can this "be done right"?

    An article in today's Guardian (12/01/15) presents a much stronger line. Under the headline, "Privacy watchdog attacks snooper's charter over encryption", it presents the Information Commissioner's warning that encryption ‘is vital’ for personal security.

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/12/privacy-watchdog-attacks-snoopers-charter-encryption

    Lord Strasburger reckons, "To some extent, the current draft of the Bill achieves [the] laudable goal [of transparency." To me it doesn't look like that.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Government acts with contempt? Surely not?

    Ah... not much different from GCHQ developing an "offensive capability", and risking being found to be in breech of the Computer Mis-Use Act 2000, so the government use "emergency powers" [nb. when there is no emergency!] to make retrospective changes to an existing law to make them exempt.

    This is perverse - because:

    1. Use of emergency powers when no "state of emergency"

    2. Bypassing of all parliamentary oversight "railroading" changes through

    3. Retrospective changes to an existing law to protect GCHQ because they were acting unlawfully!

    Who holds whom in contempt here? ... and who is "above the law"?

    Clearly we need a Bill of Rights and Constitution to protect us from our own Government...! ... okay, I'll get my coat ...

    G.

  22. Roland6 Silver badge

    The Committee have reported

    The Joint Committee published its report on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, it can be found here:

    Online: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201516/jtselect/jtinvpowers/93/9302.htm

    PDF: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201516/jtselect/jtinvpowers/93/93.pdf

  23. Baldy50

    Hello I'm from Microsoft......

    Wonder if they'll stop these guys from phoning us?

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/global-ambitions-pakistans-new-cyber-crime-act

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

Other stories you might like