UN rapporteur: 'Bad example' UK should bin the Snoopers' Charter The UN's special rapporteur on privacy has used his maiden report to the Human Rights Council, which he presented today, to criticise the UK's potential Snoopers' Charter. Joseph Cannataci, the UN's first “Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age", used his 30-page report (DOC) to invite the British …
I'll be fine, as long as we have a government that respects the right to free speech and doesn't have any plans to restrict this through mass surveillance.
Oh bugger!
Well.. it was nice knowing you. I know Blighty doesn't have a warm weather place like Gitmo, but I do it's better than Siberia..
"The report also voices another serious concern that the impact of this extreme legislation will be felt around the world, and copied by other countries."
Next they'll be telling us we can't invade countries without good reason, abduct people and hold them without a trial, or torture people because "it might set a bad example".
Next they'll be telling us we can't invade countries without good reason, abduct people and hold them without a trial, or torture people because "it might set a bad example".
Next hopefully they'll be telling us to deal with one issue on it's own merits rather than conflating a shopping list of different issues. No really, please stop that; you guys make it really difficult for me to argue your side.
This is a tendency in Snowden that really grates with me.
This!
Notice how hard they have been trying to worm out of the human rights act? It does seem that this is the whole reason for it, as mass surveillance goes against human rights.
This has been ongoing for so long and every time the bill gets knowked down - will they just f***ing drop it already?? *Sigh*
Notice how hard they have been trying to worm out of the human rights act? It does seem that this is the whole reason for it, as mass surveillance goes against human rights.
I wouldn't say the whole reason for it, but perhaps part of it given that someone in the Tory party (Privy Councillors?) may well have known of the surveillance programme during New Labour's spell in government. But a much more public part was almost certainly down to Murdoch's influence -- he railed against the HRA because it's the closest thing we've got to a privacy law, and we do now know just how badly some of his newspapers were in breach of that.
I'm still fairly hopeful that we won't vote to leave the EU. The only people who really want it are the more right-wing portion of the Tory party (yes, UKIPpers, this includes you), and thankfully, that is not representative of the population as a whole.
The only others likely to vote that way are those who are swayed by what they read in The Sun, The Times, The Torygraph, et al, and to be honest, those dumb enough to read the Murdoch/Barclay press are unlikely to also be clever and motivated enough to vote in a referendum.
This will remain my belief, until my faith in human nature is shattered once more by the next demonstration of mass stupidity...
So all those traditional Labour supporters who think the EU has led to mass migration from Eastern Europe leading to native unemployment, benefits abuse and lower low-skilled wages are what, told what to think by Murdoch rather than what they see down the local job centre? People being offered jobs at wages they can barely live on but told that someone will take it if they don't are not actually hearing that but simply being confused by the Murdoch media?
Large states -> large bureaucracies -> centralisation of power -> wielding of power -> war or totalitarianism or both
Small states -> petty bureaucracies -> decentralisation of power -> very little power to wield -> parochial squabbles over putting your bins out and keeping your garden tidy
Over-simplified? Maybe. But it makes a kind of intuitive sense.
So all those traditional Labour supporters who think the EU has led to mass migration from Eastern Europe leading to native unemployment, benefits abuse and lower low-skilled wages are what, told what to think by Murdoch rather than what they see down the local job centre?
Pretty much, yes. Given that net migration within the EU is probably a lot less than you actually think, and that when people come here, it will more often than not be to go straight into a skilled job, because the cost of moving here from Poland means that people are not coming here just to get benefits.
Also, what about all the British citizens claiming benefits in EU countries? For example, Ireland, where they are entitled to more than they can get here and don't have to undergo the same soul-destroying processes involved in signing on in the UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu
Given that we are a relatively small country, those statistics pretty much show that British people are worse than a lot of those from other countries we like to talk about.
Also, that whole bit about low wages - that has nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with our own government not mandating a decent minimum wage that people can actually live on. Do you honestly think that would improve if we were to leave the EU?
"Given that net migration within the EU is probably a lot less than you actually think"
Ignoring what I think, let's see what net migration actually is:
330,000 in year ending March 2015 (BBC) approx. 200k had jobs, meaning 130k did not.
If you're looking for work, or a better job, and see this influx of people, bearing in mind they are not evenly spread across the country, then it is easy to see this as a major issue if they're coming into the same segment of the job market as you are in. But if you're a middle class programmer it's probably easier to dismiss such claims as Murdoch hysteria and right wing Tory propaganda.
There are 850k Polish people in the UK, more than Indians, which I don't care about, but I can see the same resentment towards the Eastern Europeans among many people that I recall people having towards Indians and Pakistanis in the early 80s. And it's working, and not-working, class people that mainly have this issue as it's easy to blame 'the other' for your low wages, poor prospects and lack of success, regardless of where the fault actually lies.
"
330,000 in year ending March 2015 (BBC) approx. 200k had jobs, meaning 130k did not.
"
Sounds perfectly reasonable if it involves families with non-working children & housewives. Any idea how that percentage compares with the percentage of the whole population that is working? Or are you erroneously assuming that everyone who does not have a job is claiming benefits?
Pretty small number of children, the majority would be looking for work not benefits. Which is why seeing a massive influx of low wage seeking people in certain areas would lead the low skilled in those areas to resent the immigrants, regardless of the actual impact on jobs and wages in those areas.
From the ONS:
"Of those immigrating for work-related reasons in the year ending September 2014, 62% (167,000) came with a definite job to go to and 38% (104,000) came to look for work."
"Or are you erroneously assuming that everyone who does not have a job is claiming benefits?"
I guess not. Seems your perception of my point is what is erroneous.
OTOH a small number are coming for medical treatment and are disproportionately expensive, but that's nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Over-simplified? Maybe.
Definitely over-simplified. Just look at how much power in the UK has been taken from local government and moved to central government over the last 30 years. Look at how the likes of Eric Pickles promised to decentralise power until he found people wanted to do the things he didn't want to do. Look at the way education has been brought under the direct control of the Secretary of State for Education -- that's your kids' future and all the shit at school they have to put up with today, not a squabble about dustbins.
@Scrubber
"Large states -> large bureaucracies -> centralisation of power -> wielding of power -> war or totalitarianism or both"
Can't argue with that - I'll even cite the British Empire as an excellent example :-).
"Small states -> petty bureaucracies -> decentralisation of power -> very little power to wield -> parochial squabbles over putting your bins out and keeping your garden tidy"
So independance for Yorkshire! Or, um, Hartlepool! Or maybe establish Passport Control at Pimlico!
"Passport to Pimlico is a 1949 British comedy film made by Ealing Studios and starring Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford and Hermione Baddeley.... The film was inspired by a true incident during the Second World War, when the maternity ward of Ottawa Civic Hospital was temporarily declared extraterritorial by the Canadian government so that, when Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was born there, she would not lose her right to the throne."
Yes, I admit it. I'm old (blush). And I still have a soft spot for Ealing Studios...
@David 132
"For my mind, Kind Hearts and Coronets - or the Lavender Hill Mob - are better than Passport to Pimlico"
And I'd have no argument against either being better - it's just Passport was apropos of the 'smaller states are better' view, though it sort of didn't turn out quite like that by the end of the movie... :-)
This post has been deleted by its author
The more information gathered the more false positives there will be.
It doesn't matter if you whittle them down to the fractions of a per cent of the total individuals involved. Even 0.01% of 70 million people is 7000 people (and their families/friends) potentially having their lives turned upside down 'because'.
Does anyone believe sufficient resources will be provided to include checks and counter-checks to get the figure even as low as this?
"As before, I do not think we have any issues with the government agencies acquiring this knowledge as their remit is focused on serious issues."
I have major issues with government agencies acquiring this knowledge because even if "their remit is focused on serious issues" this isn't the way to solve those issues.
We can't protect our way of life by destroying the foundations on which it's built.
"
I do not think we have any issues with the government agencies acquiring this knowledge as their remit is focused on serious issues.
"
A very naïve view that assumes that their "serious issues" are in accord with your own. The most serious issue for any government department is firstly to ensure they remain in position, and as soon as that is ensured they work on the issue of how to get more money and power. The various wars (on crime, drugs, paedophiles, terrorists, health etc.) are just a means to an end. Increase the perceived threat or problem that your department is tasked with dealing with, and you automatically increase the funding and staffing levels, which increases your power. Information is therefore primarily used to increase the perception of the problem rather than solving it. The very last thing that the DoD wants is World peace!
I'd like to point out that good ol Boris has done a deal with a company to use the same Wi-Fi tracking shops use, to track everyone throughout the whole of London, full rollout is set for 2017.
I did email the Reg as thought it might be an interesting story, mebbe I will write a freelance piece.
There's an App for that - Airplane mode (could be renamed Boris mode)
It seems the only ways to avoid tracking are:
a) death
b) wear a different number of legs, different wigs and a welders' mask for each outing (to blend in)
c) communicate by whispering and charades and eschew electronic devices of all sorts
d) Find alternatives to Facebook & Google - things like visiting real friends (can you trust they're not instruments of the state?)
e) Stay in one place at all times
As always, people here - assuming they're in the UK - can write to their MP by going to writetothem.com and entering their postcode. The website will do the rest and find your MP for you, and in most cases will allow you to email them directly.
https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/704716608212770816
I always feel that part of the reason for British gov's supporting the idea of a referendum to leave the EU is because Britain will have less reason to listen to the ECJ and ECHR. So I guess the next referendum will be to leave the UN?
Also the Gov' has never been comfortable with the notion of 'The People' communicating freely with each other; Marconi patented his radio system in 1896, 8 years later the British Gov' brought in the first 1904 wireless telegraphy act, they have been leery of electrical/ronic communications ever since.
R.I.P.A is just a continuation of keeping an eye on the great unwashed.
That's very true (I'm trying to get my students to see the difference at the moment). However, it will not be difficult for the government to see a referendum result to leave the EU as a mandate to leave the Council of Europe (which, as can be seen regularly, very few people have heard of), <sarc>and throw off the shackles of those pesky Human Rights that are "undermining our sovereignty".
All that will be left is to join with those bastions of recognising State sovereignty, the USA, and all will be well ...(/sarc>
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
