Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 10 Jul 2014.
Privacy advocates not impressed.
So once again the government sticks 2 fingers up and does what the hell it wants regardless. Great.
I was under the impression that the ECJ not only ruled that it was for people whose communications must be confidential for legal reasons, but also because it breached the right to privacy for us normal people.
I also, maybe incorrectly, thought that it applies to mobile phone call logs and web sites visited.
Basically it seems like a resurrection of the snoopers charter, even though Nick Clegg claims it is not.
EDIT: Rhetorical question, if it's "emergency legislation" what is the emergency ?
No doubt they'll be using the excuse that they could stop teenagers from being indoctrinated and heading out to fight in Syria. That seems to be the big story of the moment.
If it'll stop teenagers wanting to be politicians, then I'm all for it! </trolling>
They always find a way to dress it up so it sounds like they are doing us a favour. Only need to look at the whole internet filtering because of 'child pornography' bollox. It sounds good, but won't actually benefit children at all. Just a slow erosion of our freedoms. They just want control over us. One of these days they'll push us too far..
My limited understanding is that with the ECJ ruling that the Data Retention Directive is non-binding, companies have been asking government what they're meant to do with the data already gathered, otherwise they'll bin it. The government doesn't want them to so is introducing emergency legislation to force them to keep hold of it.
It's a tricky one. On the one hand "the eval gummint is robbin owur freedumbs!", while on the other hand the French have just uncovered a plot to blow up the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre (and possibly a French nuclear power station), suggesting that we may be on the verge of another period of heightened risk from terrorist attack.
Edit: here's a news article.
"French police stumbled on terror plans after decrypting coded messages between Algerian butcher living in southern France and high-ranking members of al-Qaeda"
Just because we maybe on the verge of heightened risk from terrorist attacks, I don't think a proportional response is to carry on retaining logs of all private communications.
Especially as one of the reasons the ECJ ruled that the data retention laws were invalid was because data retention should be limited to that which is strictly necessary. I wouldn't call blanket coverage to be limited to that which is strictly necessary, why do they need to know how often, when, who, and how long you had a telephone conversation with someone, what web sites you view, who you send and receive e-mails and SMS messages from.
If it was proportional and limited to that which is strictly necessary, wouldn't it be limited to people under suspicion, or with ties to terrorist organisations and the like ?
EDIT: The sad thing is the ECJ ruled that the data retention laws were invalid back in April so why all of a sudden does legislation need to be rushed through parliament, they've had over two months to address and discuss the problem raised by Teresa May.
Is this legislation being rushed through parliament because we face an emergency, or is it because a group of civil liberty organizations have threatened legal action.
The government has just published the bill, which is officially known as the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (DRIP). PDFs available on GOV.UK.
It's not just because we're at heightened risk. It's also because the nature of the threat has changed - it seems our biggest threat is now radicalised nationals (as opposed to imported terrorists).
The fact that French Police "stumbled" across that plot suggests that the plotter (a butcher from southern France) wasn't on their radar therefore only monitoring known radicals doesn't cut it any more.
So is a proportional response to that a blanket coverage of when, and who every individual communicates with ? Seem like a rather big net to be throwing just in case they stumble upon a radicalised individual.
Also the headline the telegraph uses is a little over the top.
Stating "Islamist plot to blow up Eiffel Tower, Louvre and nuclear power plant foiled" suggests that a plan was in place, planned out in every detail and that it was interrupted (i.e. we were close to it being implemeneted)
Where as if you read the article it suggests that actually it was at the level of two guys on the interenet suggesting "what if's", so no plan in place at all. Its certianly a worrying announcement but not really worth "emergency" measures like the government is proposing to push through here
I received this today on the subject
Today the Government has announced 'emergency' legislation on Data Retention. They claim they urgently need ISPs to keep records of your phone calls, texts, and Internet browsing history. With hardly any scrutiny from Parliament or civil society, they are presenting a new law to Parliament on Monday. 
But this is not the time for emergency law.
This legislation is being pushed through in a day. Emergency laws are not for crucial decisions about our fundamental rights. What is urgent is making sure that democracy functions properly.
Tell your MP to stop this dangerous legislation and ask for a proper debate:
MP Tom Watson says: 'None of your MPs have even read this legislation, let alone been able to scrutinise it....nobody has had the chance to debate and question.'
The Government are responding to the threat of legal action. They know that there is no legal basis for making Internet Service Providers and phone networks retain our data. It goes against the ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU in April, which stated that this kind of data retention is fundamentally incompatible with our right to privacy and protection of personal data. 
Thanks to you we've put pressure on ISPs, telling them to stop retaining your data. We've made it clear that we are willing to challenge continued use of Data Retention Law. Now let's keep the pressure on and make it equally clear that this new law just opens them up to another law suit.
Please take action and write to your MP now!
Whichever way your MP usually votes on security issues, or which party they are in, they should be invited to debate this properly.
 Updates on Emergency Data Retention Law
 Briefing to MPs on Data Retention Legislation
If you've got a better idea I'm sure GCHQ and MI6 are all ears.
As your avatar clearly shows
Ear-sinks. Sinks, for ears.
I want to know what the emergency is. Did somebody say something in a private phone call or tweet that stopped a Tory from earning his next million? Shame on you!
Already written to mine. They have been given no notice of this (many of them are already home so won't get the message until Monday), yet my MP tells me it can take 10 days to read and respond to my emails (he is probably sick of hearing from me!).
I know this is a serious topic but i can't help but think of this...
Separate names with a comma.