UK Investigatory Powers Bill may be fast-forwarded due to events in Paris.

I followed the ATS thread as events happened in Paris on Friday night. Several members mentioned that it would be interesting to see if the French government use the situation to quickly push through new draconian laws which curb individual freedom in the name of security.

Ironically, today we have Lord Carlisle, a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords stating

"The Investigatory Powers Bill, which was published in draft form a fortnight ago by Home Secretary Theresa May, gives our spies all the powers they need to fight terrorism in the aftermath of the Snowden leaks, which have shown terrorists ways to hide their electronic footprints. I and other politicians want this Bill to be expedited, so that rather than becoming law by the end of 2016, which is the plan, it should become law as soon as possible." Lord Carlisle is considered to be a top legal expert in the UK and a former independent reviewer of anti-terror legislation.

DM Link

The Investigatory Powers Bill has already been discussed on ATS. Just to recap, the bill places a requirement on ISPs and mobile phone operators to record the activities of subscribers. A record of texts, emails and phone calls will be held for at least a year. This rule will apply to all subscribers and not just those who might be under suspicion of terrorist activity. The UK government is claiming that this bill is needed as there is a gap in the security service's capabilities which is putting lives at risk. To date the UK government have not shown what in fact that gap is.

Chris Watson, head of technology, media and communications at law firm CMS argues that it could potentially allow the government to do what it likes without any transparency as to why.

"In effect there would be a law that allowed the government to do what it thinks is in our interest. This is profoundly wrong; transparency accompanied by democratic review and accountability, is essential - and we should not accept anything less,"

Link

It will be interesting to see what influence he has on the government.

Bills can be fast-tracked, but that does not necessarily mean it will happen quickly. In England, the process to eventually have a Bill turned into a law is complex and fixed on several stages that must be traversed successfully, including due scrutiny and debate.

Oh, look here's the process

a reply to: deliberator

You know what is really really scary : the people involved in this might actually believe they really need these powers to catch terrorists. I don't know who is dumber those politicians or a terrorists planning their attacks online unencrypted using a commercial ISP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus fecking christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This won't prevent the next attack either, just watch everyone a little closer.

They better, their actions in the middle east are detestable, calling for more bombing of Syria and ground invasion in the main stream here in the states has been ongoing nonstop since the attack in Paris.

Terror incident breeds more calls for security and monitoring of peoples everyday chats, because they are afraid that at some point the people might not continue to go along with the program.

Which actually is amazing when you think about it.

How much longer will ordinary people just sit by while their government is hijacked by corporate interests to wage aggressive war for territory and resources?

I was expecting they would pull this one out

You know I am all for greater security, I have nothing to hide so the idea of the security services looking at what i am looking at on-line is not a huge worry. My concern is with the principle behind this it eradicates on-line privacy what happens if there hackers get a hold of this information and where do we draw the line, today they want to see what we are looking at online, tomorrow they want to read our emails. To me this bill puts to much power in the hands of the security services and so far i am not convinced it is needed.

I think there should be a compromise to make it easier for the scrutiny services to snoop on suspects but this bill is essentially going to be a blanket indefinite surveillance operation targeting everyone in the UK. Furthermore I am pretty sure the real hardcore criminals will find away around these measures.

If my MP votes in favour of this bill then he is losing my vote at the next election.

a reply to: paraphi

As he is considered a top legal expert in the UK I doubt he would make such statements unless it was possible. I think Emergency and 'Fast Track' legislation does not follow the same process. If I remember correctly the House of Lords complained to the government in 2013 claiming this type of legislation curtails parliamentary debate and bypasses scrutiny.

Yeah never let a crisis go to waste. The people will back this out of over reaction to fear. It's sad

a reply to: deliberator
We do not have state of emergency declared, nor will there be IMHO. Besides, emergency legislation cannot subvert democratic interaction, such as a vote. The Bill in question will not be fast-tracked. There is existing provision to snoop and intrude.

Why do you think terrorists or wannabe terrorists go abroad to get training? To escape all the surveillance in the UK. Similarly, the French plot was actually planned outside France in Belgium.

I don't believe this UK surveillance bill has anything to do with terrorism but just for those in power to keep track of anyone else who dares to criticize their policies like school or hospital closures or immigration.

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Vultures.

a reply to: deliberator

That's great.

They won... I have no idea why we even fight them, if the methods we use insist that we lose the liberty we are supposed to be fighting for. Pathetic.

If you remember the main argument against the assisted-dying bill by the general public was the slippery slope scenario. It amazes me that they cannot see the same scenario regarding mass surveillance.

originally posted by: deliberator
If you remember the main argument against the assisted-dying bill by the general public was the slippery slope scenario. It amazes me that they cannot see the same scenario regarding mass surveillance.

Indeed, but the "slippery slope" argument was only one of the four "main" arguments.

On the slippery slope...

The concern is that a society that allows voluntary euthanasia will gradually change its attitudes to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia.

Source NHS Choices

However, in the case of the Bill in question many of these powers already exist, but are being consolidated into a single approach. The "how" and the "if" will challenge some elements of the Bill. There are some good points, including improved judicial oversight. Anyway, it's not mass surveillance per se.

That said, there is a potential slippery slope which I am also nervous of.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: deliberator

You know what is really really scary : the people involved in this might actually believe they really need these powers to catch terrorists. I don't know who is dumber those politicians or a terrorists planning their attacks online unencrypted using a commercial ISP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus fecking christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They obviously don't need these powers to catch terrorists as it won't change a thing. Only a stupid terrorist would use electronic communication whatsoever for these kinds of things.

No, they need these powers to obtain information which they can use to blackmail MP's and others in order to increase their budgets for the next year.