Snoopers Charter passed into Law

Little nervous posting this as i don't want to come across as flogging a dead horse and I'm not sure if there's a rule against pimping crowdfunding (if there is i apologise to the mods and understand if this post gets deleted or i get warned/banned), however i feel strongly that our laws should be designed to function as if the *people we trust least are in power.

To that effect Liberty has started a crowdfunding legal challenge to the Investigatory Powers Act.

*That's not a dig at our current government in case there's misunderstanding, it's an issue of trust in all future governments whoever they maybe.

 

Commander Vimes didn’t like the phrase “The innocent have nothing to fear,” believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like “The innocent have nothing to fear.” - Snuff, Terry Pratchett

 

People forget that innocence becomes subjective under the ideology of the autocrat...

 

Indeed. This is aptly explored in a blog by a British Sci-Fi writer called Rod Rees:

 

Liberty has been given the go ahead to challenge the Snooper Charter in the high court.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.or...-ahead-challenge-snoopers’-charter-high-court

 

Amber at it again.

While my encryption is pretty rusty, the fact she says 'I am not suggesting you give us the code' makes me think she thinks encryption is still in the Roman era.

 

As soon as someone starts their argument with: "I don't need to understand..." I usually stop listening to them.

 

It makes me think Mrs Rudd doesn't even understand basic maths.

Maybe if she doesn't want to be sneered at she should make some attempt to grasp the basics, maybe at least understand what encryption actually is.

 

As I said, it seems she thinks encryptions is stuck in the Roman era. The 'code' is shift it 3 places to the left, or she imagines it as a virtual safe that requires a code to be entered to 'unlock' the message. Either way, she definitely needs to do more research into how modern cryptography works as Encryption for Dummies isn't enough!

 

Maybe we should gift her a copy of this book via Amazon.



On second thoughts though maybe not, she'd probably call for it to be banned or think we were making fun of her and throw it in the bin.

 

Holy s***, it actually exists.

 

Looks like the government has accepted that some parts of the Snoopers charter are "inconsistent with EU law" apparently because...

• law enforcement did not need to seek independent permission to access communications data
• collecting communication metadata was not only reserved for the most serious crimes

To address those concerns, the government proposes:

• that offences carrying a potential prison sentence of six months or more should be considered "serious crimes" for which communications data can be collected
• that communications data will no longer be collected for the purpose of public health, collecting taxes or regulating financial markets
• creating a new Office for Communications Data Authorisations (OCDA) that will authorise or decline law enforcement requests for data

Win?

 

Because we all know that six months is the typical sentence for a serious crime.

I guess this bill will go on the back burner until after Brexit.

 

I'm not sure how they'd do that as the bill came into force last year.

Can the government ignore, postpone, or use other delaying tactics for a year or more now the ECJ has made its ruling?

 

They have so far.

 

Liberty won the case that crowdfunding allowed them to bring against the snoopers charter.

The government now has until the 1st of November 2018 to amend the legislation as ordering service providers to retain everyone's metadata has been deemed as a breach of the European Convention of Human rights.

Their now moving onto part 2 (crowdjustice page) that intends to contest the ability of the government to hack into our computers, phones and tablets and create databases containing detailed records on us.

 

Waiting now for the first assertions that Liberty does not respect democracy™.