Snooper's Charter

[ludwig]

The Woolwich murder has provoked talk of reviving the communications data bill (called a snooper's charter by the LibDems), which allows monitoring of everyone's email and internet access by the security services.
Is this an overreaction?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22673156

[Canary42]

Knee-jerk or pre-planned - I wonder.

[chrisgel]

Yes IMO. There has been no suggestion that this Bill would have prevented this barbaric murder so there is no new justification.

[aelmpvw]

surely they don't need a data bill to do that or am i being paranoid?

[rockyracoon]

I thought they already did it.

[AB Editor]

"Is this an overreaction?"

Yes.

The problem with the snooper's charter is that the powers were going to be extended too far down the rungs of power.

Most are happy with James Bond being able to work out when the bomb is going to go off, however he does it. Most are equally as unhappy about the police having access to this kind of information - especially considering the kind of corruption we've seen over the last few years...

[bookbinder]

What, everybody's email? They'd soon fall asleep if they read mine.

[jake-the-peg]

// the bill would not automatically give access to the content of any communications without a warrant.//

I don't remember this safeguard from the first time around - anybody know if this is new?

I am much less opposed to it with this in place

[chrisgel]

JTP - That statement is a bit suspicious I think. The word "automatically" is a qualifier. If it wasn't in there I would agree but having seen many instances of "mission creep" over the years that word sounds a bit cutesy to me.

[Kromovaracun]

I am pretty skeptical of the idea that this would have prevented the murder in Woolwich.

[Ellipsis]

from the article:

> The Communications Data Bill would have given police and security services access, without a warrant, to details of all online communication in the UK - such as the time, duration, originator and recipient, and the location of the device from which it was made

So the addition of a warrant is new.

I would imagine it could work something like Ads in Gmail. A person from Google doesn't actually read your emails, but automated software does. It can then serve an ad based on the contents of your email, without (in theory) your privacy being intruded upon.

In a similar way, a Government "snooping system" could monitor everybody's electronic communications for patterns of suspicious activity. If it detected them, it could inform humans who could then apply for a warrant to open up the communication. In this way, everybody's communications would be monitored, but nobody's privacy would be breached without a warrant.

[Old_Geezer]

It wasn't a good idea last time it was mooted, that hasn't changed now. All that happens is that innocent folk get monitored whilst those with something to hide ensure no trace of anything suspicious. I don't need tax I'm forced to pay being used to spy on me. I don't wish my freedom loving country to turn into such a State to pacify those who have been frightened into thinking it'll make them safe.

[jake-the-peg]

Yes - it seems what they now want is the right to freely inspect records of data traffic - patterns from and too that they can monitor for increased 'chatter' and that they will seek a warrant from the home secretary to get access to the message contents.

Personally I'd be happy with them having that, although I'd rather the warrant came from a High Court Judge rather than a politician

[mushroom25]

how far down the food chain will access to such information be afforded - will this be another tool used by local councils against parents trying to get their kids into a better school, or against council tax payers putting their recycling in the wrong colour bin, or against dog owners not clearing up after their pets?

[emmie]

no justification for it's implementation,

[Ellipsis]

I believe the justification goes something like this:

New communications technology makes it easier for criminals to organise themselves and carry out their criminal activity. The same technology makes it technically possible to detect, prevent and/or prosecute that criminal activity, but this could be viewed as a "snoopers' charter". What sort of society would we be if we gave criminals the tools to make their activities easier, without giving our security and law enforcement services the tools to counteract this?

[ludwig]

I think it's worrying. They've seized upon this tragedy as an opportunity to resurrect this thing, but the fact that no-one thinks it's a good idea except MI5 and politicians should be ringing alarm bells straight away.

It would inevitably be misused, irrespective of whatever safeguards were implemented initially. There would always be a reason to relax or remove these at a later date.