UK's new Snoopers Charter just passed an encryption backdoor law by the backdoor
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
What I find very disturbing is the response I've got from some people in regards to signing the petition against the legislation.
"I don't want to sign that, I will probably end up on some watchlist".
This is incredible, to admit this you are basically admitting that we no longer live in a free democracy. If you cannot sign a petition regarding basic civil liberties without ending up on a watchlist then you do not live in a free democracy. Upon me telling them this, I am usually then greeted with a shrug.
People might not have anything to hide now, but things can change... fast.
At this stage the important thing is to have it go through the courts and have them stop it. Hopefully, as long as we're still in the EU, the ECJ can do something to at least water this bill down. At the very least I would like to see the requirement for Internet Connection Records to be held for everyone to be removed. I don't like the ability for 12 months of data to be collected with a warrant but at least there is some process there and some oversight.
Go on a huge demonstration (like this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2765041.stm) and be ignored.
Sign a petition (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38130344) and be ignored.
Write to your MP and be ignored.
Refuse to implement it and be sacked.
If the government uses the law to do bad things, people might start to raise a ruckus.
Perhaps it even needs to be 'do bad things to them' before ruckus-raising ensues.
Because... terrorism?
All of this is despite Labour being run by figures who have a long history of opposing government authoritarianism. For example, Jeremy Corbyn didn't vote against it. Shami Chakrabarti, who spent years running Liberty, an organisation dedicated to protecting individual liberties, abstained.
What the hell is going on behind the scenes when people like that have been successfully silenced?
When a law this far-reaching and repressive is passed with a conspiracy of silence and acquiescence from both the media and the political establishment, you have to conclude that UK democracy is basically non-functional. It's over.
Corbyn's a fucking clown. I wouldn't expect him to do anything effective about... well, anything.
I wouldn't necessarily expect Corbyn to organise an effective opposition to this bill, but I would expect him to offer some opposition. For him not to do so is not just disappointing, it's unbelievably weird. It's the kind of unexplained weirdness that means you have to start asking what is going on, and what kind of pressures are being applied, in order to prevent him doing so.
I like him as a politician, but Labour needs a leader that can unite both sides of the party that the leadership contest and the referendum exposed. Even if Corbyn wants to do this, the view now from the outside is that he can't.
Anything that can be spun as anti-British (i this case making it harder for security services and the military to "do their job") in the current climate is not a battle they want to fight unfortunately.
Where in UK politics is the voice of social progress and individual freedom?
It seems to be too busy tearing itself to pieces over idealogical minutiae to be any sort of useful opposition.
"The primary function of government is to ensure the security of its citizens and to protect them, their property and way of life against threats. An independent Scotland will have security arrangements that are proportionate, fit for purpose and reflect a full strategic assessment of Scotland's needs and the threats we may face."
Which is great non-answer answer!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/03/nsa-su...
I think it's time for the Labour party to go out to pasture. There needs to be a split, take some Conservatives, some UKIP (maybe, if there's any more moderate ones left) but enough to lose the baggage of any one party, lose the extremes and head for the middle ground.
Unless that happens (and it seems at this point it won't) I don't see there being an effective opposition anytime soon.
Labour needs to focus on deselecting the Blairites who were in favor of 'moderately' invading Iraq and are 'moderately' in favor of making the snooper's charter even worse (e.g. like Yvette Cooper).
The Labour party have been completely neutered. The membership and the unions clearly want them to take a much more radical left wing approach but the party establishment still want them to be the party Blair built and it's caused this weird stalemate. I think Blair would have backed this bill.
An interesting point is that the bill has exceptions for journalists. I suspect that has encouraged the media to keep pretty quiet about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3333366/Half-of-counc...
> The Tories condemned the latest figures as further evidence that the law had become a "snooper's charter". "Under Labour, the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens are being eroded through plans for ID cards, sinister microchip spies in bins and abuse of anti-terror laws by councils," said Eric Pickles, the party's communities spokesman.
Strange reading nowadays. I wonder what Eric Pickles makes of it all.
If there is a reason this policy has such broad cross-party support then why isn't anyone allowed to explain what that reason is?
I mean, I'm trying to resist looking for my tinfoil hat but does anyone know of any agencies that have a decade's worth of everybody's communications history and Meta data that may or may not be used against somebody to sway their opinion on a particular subject? No? Didn't think so.
I still feel mad and a bit wrong typing that second paragraph as five years ago it would have just been complete conspiracy theory, but now it's just been passed into law. My country is a disturbing place right now.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/undercover-with-paul-lew...
" A whistleblower, Peter Francis, has revealed that police compiled secret files on the political activities of Corbyn and nine other MPs, even after they had been elected to the House of Commons.
Francis disclosed that he had read the files on the 10 MPs while he worked for the Metropolitan Police’s special branch.
He added that he had personally collected information on Corbyn, and two other MPs, while he was working undercover infiltrating anti-racist groups in the 1990s. Read this and this for more details of his revelations that were made in March this year."
I don't doubt that the same people who ordered the monitoring of "subversive" anti-racist groups are the same people who are calling him an anti-semite.
She'll obviously tow the Corbyn line, and it's most likely that this line was set by the PLP. There's been talk about Andy Burnham (who's running for Mayor of Manchester) having raised concerns, but ultimately bowed out after being told about safeguards being put in - he never actually checked the safeguards and was apparently somewhat surprised when he found that they didn't actually exist.
^Before anyone says otherwise bear in mind Corbyn refused to nominate people to the Lords based on his opposition to the Lords, and she's the only nominated peer he's put forward, immediately after the review concluded but before the internal election.
Just think: who has the most to gain? And don't stay limited to the UK.
So perhaps they were persuaded by actual persuasion, rather than a gun to the head?
Such as for example, somebody had a quiet word with them about The Aliens.
The problem is, there are no major parties which are opposed to it. There is no choice.
I really think that UK suffers because it hasn't gone through a restrictive communist government that had extended surveillance and censorship - so that now, in 2016, people don't know how to recognize signs of what's coming.
Coincidentally, 'the percentage of people who say it is “essential” to live in a democracy has plummeted, and it is especially low among younger generations.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/americas/western-lib...
Seems to be happening worldwide, to some degree.
Or are we at stage three of Dmitri Orlov's Five Stages of Collapse (http://cleaves.zapto.org/news/attachments/nov2009/5stagescol...)?
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that "the government will take care of you" is lost. As official attempts to mitigate widespread loss of access to commercial sources of survival necessities fail to make a difference, the political establishment loses legitimacy and relevance.
I consider myself a quite intelligent and logical person, but I get lost halfway through reading it. It seems full of contradictions and half vague statements that could or couldn't cover something.
Are these bills purposefully confusing by design? It seems like you can interpret it in a lot of ways. Why is it not clear, concise and understandable?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199
"The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.
The Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements.
The Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.
Second, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.
Third, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.
Public scrutiny
The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage. The Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed.
The Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material.
A revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time.
The Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes.
Privacy and Oversight
The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy.
A new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the protection of privacy is at the heart of this legislation. This privacy clause ensures that in each and every case a public authority must consider whether less intrusive means could be used, and must have regard to human rights and the particular sensitivity of certain information. The powers can only be exercised when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and the Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers. The safeguards in this Act reflect the UK’s international reputation for protecting human rights. The unprecedented transparency and the new safeguards – including the ‘double lock’ for the most sensitive powers – set an international benchmark for how the law can protect both privacy and security.
Home Office"
Again in their response, I have no idea what they really said. It's not clear other than some vague line on terrorism and safety. It's all a mixture of half speak and jargon.
The agencies and authorities that pressurise and cajole Governments into these actions are unelected and play the long-game. They can wait and ride-out any Paliament that is insufficiently malleable.
Which reminds me to update my collection of encryption program source code whilst I still can.
France already has a similar law in place so I wonder how that worked out for them by preventing the Bataclan massacre. (it didn't)
This law will probably not help in any shape or form to prevent terrorism but was merely implemented to provide some form of leverage over people.
"Do as we say or this lovely data becomes public, or you are denied healthcare because of a site you visited but never visited because it was a hidden iframe"
Until a few years ago, they compensated by treating the internet as a free-for-all where they could spy at will; as people fought back and started to demand accountability and limits, they responded with a legislative backlash that is slowly making gains everywhere. The most authoritarian-inclined states (UK, France, Italy) have passed the worst laws, but others are busy following suit.
It's an ideological battle, and they are winning it. One day we will look back at the Chinese firewall as a pioneering effort.
- Is it domain names, or subdomain names?
- How do they get the domain names? Do they look at IP addresses I'm connected to and do a lookup?
- If I use a VPN, will all my traffic come up as that VPN?
- How will they link an internet connection to a person? Will it be done on the name they used when they signed up, their house address, or their billing details?
Since the traffic exits at the VPN only the VPN endpoint would be able to read this meta data if they did such a thing which is not impossible but not normal. The worst case scenario is that your encrypted traffic is recorded for a while then they come knocking on the door for the encryption key. Alternatively if the international VPN provider is of the cooperating kind then they can log this data on behalf of your government. So use a foreign VPN provider that stands up for rights or use a dedicated server in a foreign country.
I have always wondered if this could be avoided though by using some form of rotating keys that you throw away or perfect-forward-secrecy if this works.
The matter in question is: who do you trust more? Your ISP or the VPN provider? The default should be that you don't trust your ISP, especially if you are in the UK. Hence, trusting a VPN provider is the lesser of two evils.
Will that protect your child-pornography-viewing? If you use Qubes OS, where you have a VPN on the host, then you use Whonix in a VM, where you use tor, then you are probably safe.
Are you a terrorist planning to destroy America? You are probably our of luck, but for the truly paranoid it could be achieved.
My advice: it is better to trust VPN providers in other countries than your own, just select decently (aka, not Hide my Ass). NEVER trust your ISP!
This isn't true they misunderstand it. They're trying to force it into their centralised, controllable world-view. They haven't yet figured out that this doesn't work with a decentralised system where its trivial for people to hop on and off the network irrespective of geography and borders.
This is hardly a battle they can win, the outcome is just that the average citizen is watched and those with knowledge of the internet circumvent the snooping. This will slowly chug along until someone leaks or gains a copy of the data, shares it online, ruins a bunch of lives, prompts public outcry and then they inevitably scrap it.
But just to play devil's advocate, it is possible the authorities could have prevented the Bataclan massacre but chose not to "for the greater good". There's a similar conspiracy theory around the Coventry blitz[0].
It might very well be false, I'm just suggesting there may be an alternate explanation (i.e. the French surveillance is actually working very well).
It is not until they hear the captive bolt being shot through the skull of the sheep in front of them, that they finally start to panic.
Terrifying? Horrific? Insidious?
It is impossible to read properly encrypted data. However, this law enables government to require tech firms to deliberately break cryptography in their products.
(well, as safe as they were prior to the Snooper's Charter).
I almost think we'd be better off going the other direction and hiding our signal in a bunch of noise, or just grab everything and review it on an uncompromised network (such as "spider every top link from HN and store it locally, then browse only that local copy").
VPN traffic has a distinctive signature, and ISPs are already using deep packet inspection hardware already, so blocking VPN traffic seems like a natural evolution in this particular arms race.
I agree with the sentiment, but at least legality of snooping has not been settled yet.
Genuine question - has anything ever happened as a result of these petitions? When it has been debated, has there been a meaningful change afterwards?
"We have considered debating this and decided actually we don't fancy it. Keep signing the petitions though, they definitely make a difference and don't think about taking direct action of any form."
Of course they could make that illegal as well...
If my computer makes a VPN connection with a machine outside of the UK, is the above claim still valid?
> "The UK government can certainly insist that a company not based in the UK carry out its orders – that situation is specifically included in the new law – but as to whether it can realistically impose such a requirement, well, that will come down to how far those companies are willing to push back and how much they are willing to walk away from the UK market."
But I cannot see why someone would comply with that. For example getting an AWS machine in Ireland, is that within the "UK market"? Does amazon have to comply just because many customers are in the UK? And will we ever know if they do comply? What a mess.
I'm absolutely sure by now someone has written a program to automate this, and to be honest I expect some governments already force some companies to do this.