New snooper law proposed

[astrols]

Excuse my ignorance but what is DRIP

[tinfoilhat]

It's not a new policy, the government set up the secret police in 2010

 

I thought labour brought in the snoopers charter or was started by labour. I remember all sorts of survailence legislation. This touches on it.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/mar/29/data-protection-surveillance

[Anna B]

Survielance in this country is getting beyond a joke.

 

And anybody still with the mindset that 'If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide,' really ought to grow up and take a little look at some of the new legislation that has got through parliament (albeit very quietly,) in the last 5 years.

 

Not to mention secret courts...

[esme]

Excuse my ignorance but what is DRIP

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill announced as emergency legislation and nodded through parliament without any real debate, the lords then passed it without even bothering to vote and it received royal assent and became law.

 

The whole thing took about a week to become law

 

I think the phrase used at the time was "stitch up", there was no real debate, no chance to examine the proposals in detail and very little time to raise any objection.

 

Not that objecting did any good as a cross party whip ensured majority support.

 

Here's a few articles

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/16/everything-you-need-to-know-about-drip

https://gigaom.com/2014/07/17/the-uks-emergency-drip-surveillance-law-is-now-a-done-deal/

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2014/the-drip-myth-list

[Mecky]

Really? I'm sure you can substantiate that latest bit of codswallop can't you?

 

Yes I can, why can you?

 

---------- Post added 24-11-2014 at 06:12 ----------

 

I thought labour brought in the snoopers charter or was started by labour. I remember all sorts of survailence legislation. This touches on it.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/mar/29/data-protection-surveillance

 

That was basically ID cards and yes, it wasn't a nice thought, but there's a lot of difference than recording peoples' personal details onto a database, than actively tracking people down 24/7 as these clowns are already doing. That's why we are hearing of these Gestapo style snatches in the media. At least Labour had the sense to not carry through with the ID card plan, which is more than I could ever about the tories - and to think people have been lectured through the Leveson Enquiry and summoned to parliament as though the government is some kind of God.

 

At present, it seems largely applied to suspected terrorists who may even be innocent, but there is plenty of scope of potential abuse, if abuse hasn't already been carried out. Mind you, these sort of tactics have been used by supermarkets for around 25 years - Supermarkets will know when you are likely to shop next and have a fair idea of what you'll buy. I'm just waiting to see a, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," stupid comment.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Mecky

[Xt500]

I hope it's used with the sole intention of catching terrorists but I suspect that it's intention is to be far more intrusive than that.

 

That terrorist angle always works doesnt it? When ever were about to lose to rights or privacy,the news gets filled with terrorist crap,same old pattern this time...

[Mecky]

hhmmmm state-sanctioned murder anyone? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30173238

[Guest]

That terrorist angle always works doesnt it? When ever were about to lose to rights or privacy,the news gets filled with terrorist crap,same old pattern this time...

 

If it's not terrorism then it's "protect the children".

 

But, as usual, people in this country are more interested in the latest episode of The Apprentice than they are in their civil rights. As long as they can watch Stricly Come Big Brother they're happy.

[altus]

It's not a new policy, the government set up the secret police in 2010

 

If you're worried about a police state:

Tony Blair continued what has in practice (with the possible of exception of Roy Jenkins’s periods at the Home Office) been Labour’s authoritarian approach to law and order when in government. As he put it in 2004: “We asked the police what powers they wanted, and gave them to them.” Gordon Brown takes a similar approach. When the Police Federation threatened to strike in December 2007, he was emollience itself. “I am the last person to want to be in a position where we don’t give the police what they want,” Brown said. And both men pushed for detention without trial of “terror suspects” (for 90 and 42 days, respectively), just as the Association of Chief Police Officers demanded.

[esme]

I told my MP that identifying the user from the IP isn't possible back when they whipped the Digital Economy act through parliament despite a massive protest.

 

The best you can do is identify the person paying the bill.

 

So some bad lad parks near your house, hacks your WiFi signal and uses your connection to access things HMG don't want them to.

 

The Police, in the form of the National Crime Agency (who answer directly to the Home Secretary) will come knocking on your door as your name is on the bill and ask you to explain this access, this will be the first you heard of it, it will probably be 4am.

 

But the police always believe people who protest their innocence don't they, oh wait no they don't, they will however take every piece of computer equipment, mobile phones, tablets, routers, game consoles, backup drives, USB drives, iPod's etc... that you have in your possession for forensic analysis, which will take as long as it takes, so good luck if you run a business from home.

 

The best you can do is use a nice long, preferably random password as a WiFi key and a lot of people don't have access to change this as they are set up by their ISP and are based on the subscriber information which means it's a fixed target